CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sBF4D54B4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15641/09 Ivan Alekseyevich VDOVIN against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2009, Having regard to the decision to restore the application to its list of cases, Having regard to the parties’ formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention about the non ‑ enforcement of the judgments of 22   December 2006 and 22   November 2007 in his favour and the lack of an effective remedy were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). On 12   June 2012 the Court (First Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered a decision in a group of cases, which included the above application (see Kapulin and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos.   51249/08 and 29   others, 12   June 2012). The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases on account of the applicant’s failure to submit any observations despite a strike-out warning sent by the Court. The Court considered therefore that the applicant could be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. Pursuant to the applicant’s letter of 11   June 2013, on 17   September 2013 the Court decided, in accordance with Article   37   §   2 of the Convention and Rule   43   §   5 of the Rules of Court, to restore the application to its list of cases, as it was established that the Court’s letters inviting the applicant to submit observations had been sent to an incorrect address. On the dates indicated in the appended table the Court received the friendly-settlement declaration, signed by the parties, under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amount detailed in the appended table. That amount will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case. 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 the Protocols thereto 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 21 January 2021.   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (Non-enforcement of a final judgment and lack of an effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros) [1] 15641/09 10/02/2009 Ivan Alekseyevich VDOVIN 1945 06/05/2019 09/01/2020 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.