CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s56EAFD9F { width:153.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 } .sDA7B726A { width:116.04%; border-collapse:collapse } .s24DA8339 { width:6.46%; 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 } .sDCD193E2 { width:38.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC61DC819 { width:27.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEF7374D2 { width:6.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F33CF56 { width:38.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCDED0815 { width:27.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10421/07 Valentina Ivanovna GOROVAYA and Others against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   November 2018 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 application lodged on 7 December 2006, Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v.   Russia (no. 2) (no.   33509/04, ECHR 2009), Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants are MP Kineskop, a private company incorporated in Ukraine; SPATP–2, a unitary company incorporated in Russia; and three Russian nationals residing in Sochi. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Kiryanov, lawyer practicing in Taganrog. 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 his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The applicants complained under Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 about the delayed enforcement of the domestic court’s judgment of 15 December 2005 awarding various amounts to the applicants to be paid by the State, which became final on 8   February 2006 and was enforced with delays indicated in the appendix. The application had been communicated to the Government. On 20   July 2018 the Government submitted a rectified unilateral declaration in respect of the application. In their declaration they acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. The unilateral declaration further contained the dates of the judgments, their entry into force and the full enforcement, as well as overall enforcement delays, as specified in the appendix. The authorities stated their readiness to pay to the applicants the amounts specified in the appended table as just satisfaction. The payment was 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. 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 the sum within the said 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 payment would constitute the final resolution of the case. On 7   August 2018 the applicants informed the Court that they agreed with the terms of the unilateral declaration. THE LAW The Court 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 application. 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   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 November 2018.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No. The applicants names, Year of birth/incorporation, Place of residence/registration Enforcement date Delay of enforcement, as calculated by the Government Amount proposed by the Government in respect of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 1. Valentina Ivanovna GOROVAYA 1951 Sochi, Russia 25 April 2007 1 year 2 months 15 days 760 2. Robert Ambartsumovich KESYAN 1952 Sochi, Russia 10 July 2007 1 year 5 months 890 3. Tatyana Nikolayevna MAKAROVA 1960 Sochi, Russia 10 July 2007 1 year 5 months 890 4. MP KINESKOP 1992 Chernilyava, Ukraine 21 May 2007 1 year 3 months 11 days 800 5. SPATP – 2 1995 Sochi, Russia 25 December 2007 1 year 10 months 15 days 1180     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants