CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 avril 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s94AD5A1 { width:202.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53321/11 Salman Khamidovich KELOYEV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 28 September 2015 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of six applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The applicants complained about non-enforcement, delayed enforcement of domestic judgments, lack of compensation for non-enforcement and access to court. The applications had been communicated to the Government on 29 May 2015 . THE LAW Having regard to the same subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. On various dates the Government submitted unilateral declarations aimed at resolving this issue. By these declarations the Russian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article   6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The relevant part of the declarations reads as follows: “... The Russian authorities acknowledge that the length of the proceedings in [the applicants’ cases] was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. ... The authorities of the Russian Federation are ready to pay [to each applicant] a sum of [the amount suggested] as just satisfaction. The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike [the applications] out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The [sums tabulated below], which [are] to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. [They] will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article   37 §   1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay [these sums] within the said three ‑ month period, the Government undertake 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. [These payments] will constitute the final resolution of [the cases].” Some applicants disagreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations on various grounds, considering most often that the compensation amounts offered by the Government were insufficient. Some of them insisted on the examination of their applications on the merits. Some applicants failed to reply. The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications.” To this end, the Court has examined the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article   37   §   1   (c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. The applicants in applications nos. 53321/11, 32490/12 and 1392/13 also raised another complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in so far as they concern the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application nos. 53321/11, 32490/12 and 1392/13 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 17 May 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by Amount proposed in unilateral declaration   53321/11 08/08/2011 Salman Khamidovich KELOYEV 12/09/1935 Groznyy Russian   Ilyas Yakubovich TIMISHEV 4,000 euros   32490/12 23/04/2012 Nikolay Aleksandrovich TARASOV 02/03/1978 Arkhonskaya Russian     5,800 euros   1392/13 27/01/2012 Andrey Igorevich RESIN 29/07/1974 Elban Russian   Andrey Aleksandrovich MOLOSTOV 2,027 euros   11840/13 25/01/2013 Tatyana Vasilyevna ARZYAYEVA 01/04/1956 Samara Russian   Larisa Borisovna MARTYNOVA 21/11/1964 Samara Russian   Natalya Ivanovna STANOZHENKO 09/07/1955 Samara Russian     2,150 euros to each applicant