CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 mai 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 } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 42238/07 and 47242/07 Yuriy Akimovich KUCHERENKO against Russia and Tatyana Borisovna POPOVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   May 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 21 August 2007 and 1   October 2007 respectively, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 20 July 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant in case no.   42238/07, Mr Yuriy Akimovich Kucherenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Taganrog, Rostov Region. The applicant in case no.   47242/07, Ms Tatyana Borisovna Popova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972, and lives in Taganrog, Rostov Region. 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 under Article   6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the domestic judgments against a municipal unitary enterprise and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the non ‑ enforcement problem. The applications were communicated to the Government on 30 March 2016. By letter dated 20 July 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. In their declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the Convention due to the lengthy enforcement of the judgments of the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region of 27   February 2006 in favour of Mr Kucherenko and of 16   September 2009 in favour of Ms Popova, respectively. The authorities declared that they were ready to pay each applicant 2,000   euros and requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. They stated in the declarations that the payment was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that could be applicable. It 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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. On 21 September and 10 October 2016 the Court received letters from the applicants informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject-matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 24 May 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President