CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 36600/11 Lidiya Konstantinovna SHILOVA against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   April 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates set out in the appendix, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Gerasimov and Others v.   Russia (nos. 29920/05 and 10   others, §   218, 1   July 2014), Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix. The Russian Government ("the Government")   were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr A. Fedorov, Head of the Office of the Representative of the Russian Federation to the Court. The applicants complained, among other matters, about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour imposing various obligations in kind on domestic authorities and the lack of the effective remedies in respect of the non-enforcement complaint. Dates of the judgments, their entry into force and their full enforcement are set out in the appendix. In the wake of the pilot judgment, on various dates in late 2014 the applications were communicated to the Government (see Gerasimov and Others, cited above, §§   230 ‑ 31, and point   13 of the operative part). On the dates specified in the appendix the Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In their declarations they acknowledged, in each case, the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour. The unilateral declarations further contained, in each case, the dates of the judgment at issue, its entry into force and its full enforcement, as well as an overall enforcement delay. The authorities stated their readiness to pay to the applicants the sums listed in the appendix as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payments would constitute the final resolution of the cases. In their letters received on the dates indicated in the appendix, the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. The Court attaches particular weight to the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government. It finds that such agreement shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see   Cēsnieks v.   Latvia   (dec.), no.   9278/06, §   34, 6   March 2012, and Bakal and Others v.   Turkey   (dec.), no.   8243/08, 5   June 2012). The Court therefore takes formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Court further considers that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article   37   §   1 in fine of the Convention and Rule   62   §   3 of the Rules of Court). In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article   39   §   4 of the Convention and Rule   43   §   3 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article   37   §   2 of the Convention, the present applications to its list of cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. The Court considers that the amounts proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides , having regard to the terms of the Government’s declarations, and the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, and the applicants’ acceptance of the terms of the declarations, to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Representative Date of judgment Final on Enforcement date Enforcement delay as specified in the unilateral declaration Date of unilateral declaration Remedial offer (euros) Date of applicant’s letter in reply   36600/11 16/05/2011 Lidiya Konstantinovna SHILOVA 12/02/1963 St Petersburg     28/10/2003 10/11/2003 24/12/2013 10 years 1 months and 14 days 16/12/2015   6,500 25/01/2016   37373/11 15/06/2011 Sergey Vyacheslavovich RYZHANOV 07/10/1962 Moscow     29/05/2008 31/07/2008 13/03/2013 4 years 7 months and 13 days 08/12/2015   4,520 12/02/2016   37868/11 16/05/2011 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YANCHARIN 28/05/1976 Moscow     19/04/2007 05/05/2007 19/06/2013 6years 1 month and 14 days 08/12/2015   6,000 19/01/2016   38380/11 08/06/2011 Oleg Nikolayevich OSTROVERKHIY 13/05/1959 Moscow     21/09/2009 09/10/2009 03/04/2013 3 years 5 months and 25 days 08/12/2015   3,410 04/02/2016   38878/11 03/06/2011 Dmitriy Anatolyevich MOZHAYEV 24/06/1961 Moscow     25/01/2010 16/02/2010 21/08/2013 3 years 6 months and 5 days   08/12/2015   3,440 20/01/2016   39443/11 25/05/2011 Anatoliy Ivanovich KUKO 01/09/1959 Moscow     18/11/2002 29/11/2002 20/12/2012 10 years and 21   days 24/07/2015   6,500 31/08/2015   39753/11 26/04/2011 Oleg Viktorovich SARNIKOV 05/04/1975 Moscow     31/10/2005 18/11/2005 26/03/2013 7 years 4 months and 8 days 08/12/2015   6,500 05/02/2016   43361/11 06/07/2011 Lyudmila Vitalyevna YELFIMOVA 08/08/1963 Lipetsk   Alina Anatolyevna CHERNYSHOVA [1] 27/06/1988 Lipetsk   Yevgeniy Anatolyevich YELFIMOV 01/10/1982 Lipetsk       02/12/2009 25/12/2009 03/02/2015 5 years 1 month and 9 days   11/07/2016   5,010 (jointly) 29/09/2016   74900/11 15/10/2011 Aleksandr Sergeyevich RASSOSHINSKIY 04/08/1978 Astrakhan   Margarita Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA 10/09/2009 12/11/2009 2011   07/09/2016   980 24/11/2016   3259/12 20/12/2011 Aleksey Nikolayevich ORLOV 12/04/1986 Arkhangelsk   Igor Yuryevich TELYATYEV 07/10/2009 21/10/2009 15/12/2015 6 years 1 month and 24 days 29/09/2016   6,030 09/12/2016   21923/12 22/03/2012 Aleksey Romanovich MAYOROV 27/01/1963 Nizhniy Novgorod     25/06/2009 19/08/2009 29/06/2012 2 years 10 months and 10 days 08/12/2015   2,800 20/01/2016   23439/12 29/03/2012 Dzhavad Bakhshali Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV 26/01/1964 Bogorodskoye   Rakhib Dzhavad Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV 01/02/1993 Bogorodskoye   Ramil Dzhavad Ogly BAKHSHALIYEV 13/06/1997 Bogorodskoye   Sevil Ibadulla Kyzy BAKHSHALIYEVA 08/02/1969 Bogorodskoye     28/05/2009 09/06/2009 16/05/2014 4 years 11 months and 7 days 24/07/2015   4,840 (jointly) 03/09/2015   30848/12 03/05/2012 Nina Alekseyevna MALINOVSKAYA 15/03/1952 Sortavala     28/10/2009 10/11/2009 30/01/2014 4 years 2 months and 20 days 18/01/2016   2,500 15/03/2016   40625/12 04/06/2012 Olga Nikolayevna KHLOPOTOVA 26/09/1938 Petrozavodsk     10/08/2010 21/09/2010 19/03/2014 3 years 5 months and 26 days 24/07/2015   2,200 31/08/2015   59737/13 05/09/2013 Viktor Nikolayevich CHEMADUROV 24/02/1948 Bryansk   Viktor Viktorovich SHAROVARIN 01/03/2012 15/05/2012 17/03/2016 3 years 10 months and 2 days 09/12/2016   3,766 17/01/2017   [1] .     In the course of the proceedings before the Court the last name of this applicant changed from Yelfimova to Chenyshova.