THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56398/08
Vinera Gadiyevna AKHMADULLINA
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 April 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 October 2008,
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 declaration submitted by the Government and the applicant’ acceptance of its terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Vinera Gadiyevna Akhmadullina, is a Russian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Ufa.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the delayed enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa on 5 December 2005.
On 8 September 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgment delivered in the applicant’s favour and stated their readiness to pay the applicant 1,280 euros as just satisfaction. The payment was to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, together with any costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable. The amount would be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and would be payable within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay within that 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 24 November 2015, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that she agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
The Court considers that the amount proposed by the Government should be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment.
THE LAW
The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 9278/06, § 34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8243/08, 5 June 2012).
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 application.
The Court’s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present application to the list of cases (see E.G. and Others v. Poland and 175 other Bug River applications (dec.), no. 50425/99, § 29, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
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 pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016.
Stephen PhillipsHelen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy