CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2650D24D { width:191.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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 } .sE0F4C20 { width:98.74%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4A913FAF { width:7.24%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s67D5986A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s880352FB { width:22.7%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sB146723F { width:24.62%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9C7878C2 { width:45.46%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9DA1C511 { width:7.24%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDFCD1271 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:22.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sB7D5897A { width:22.7%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s38D74A97 { width:24.62%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE7FBD20 { width:45.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s17BD663E { width:45.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt 1.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s14BA60B9 { width:45.46%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt 1.02pt; vertical-align:top } .s8302B914 { width:7.24%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEEE0D5AB { width:22.7%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF53D906F { width:24.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9131B9D0 { width:45.46%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33067/04 Galina Mikhaylovna KALINKINA and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31   July 2004, 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, 1   July 2014), Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 8   July and 8   December 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are five Russian nationals residing in Arkhangelsk. Their personal details are set out in the Appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and then by Mr M.   Galperin, his successor in that office. The applicants complained about non-enforcement of the judgment of 25   December 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk ordering to provide them with housing. They relied on Article   6 of the Convention. In 2007 the case was communicated to the Government. Pursuant to the pilot judgment Gerasimov and Others (cited above), the Government were invited to settle or resolve the case, and the application was adjourned until 1   October 2016. THE LAW A.     The complaints by Ms Antonina Vladimirovna Minina On 9   June 2016 the Government informed the Registry that on 13   April 2012 Ms Antonina Vladimirovna Minina had died. By a letter dated 30   November 2016 the Registry invited the applicant’s heirs to inform whether they intend to pursue the application. No reply followed. In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant’s heirs do not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article   37   §   1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application. Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list in so far as it concerns the complaint by Ms A.V. Minina. B.     Other applicants’ complaints By letters of 8   July and 8   December 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 25   December 2002, which had become final on 8   January 2003 and had been fully enforced on 3   March 2010. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 payment would constitute the final resolution of the case. In December 2016 the Government’s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants for comments. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. The Court observes that Article   37   §   1   (c) enables it 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 application.” Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37   §   1   (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75-77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Gerasimov and Others , cited above). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount 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 application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, 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 application (Article   37   §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37   §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, in so far as it concerns the complaints lodged by Ms Antonina Vladimirovna Minina; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations concerning other applicants specified in the Appendix and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention, on the basis of the unilateral declarations. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018. Stephen Phillips   Branko Lubarda   Registrar   President Appendix N o First name Last name Birth year The Government’s remedial offers specified in their unilateral declarations   Galina Mikhaylovna KALINKINA 1947 EUR   6,500   Aleksey Vladimirovich LAPOV 1978 EUR   6,500   Kirill Igorevich MININ 2000 EUR   6,500 jointly to Mr K.I. Minin and M.I. Minina   Mariya Igorevna MININA   1991     Antonina Vladimirovna MININA 1971 (died in 2012, no reply regarding her heirs received) n/a