FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41519/04
Robert Khamzeyevich MURTAZIN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2004,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 October 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Robert Khamzeyevich Murtazin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1953 and lived in Bugry. He was represented before the Court by Mr R.A. Zarbeyev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the 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 of the prolonged non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He also complained under Article 8 of the Convention of the authorities’ interference with the exercise of his right to respect for his private life.
The complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour was communicated to the Government.
On 10 February 2005 the applicant’s widow, Ms Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Murtazina, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 6 November 2004. She expressed her intention to continue the proceedings in his stead.
By their letter dated 19 October 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.
They acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour. By their declaration of 19 October 2012 they undertook to pay the applicant a sum of 4,760 euros as just satisfaction, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
On 24 December 2012 the applicant’s legal successor informed the Court that she had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
THE LAW
Having regard to the applicant’s complaint about the prolonged non‑enforcement of the judgment in his favour, the Court finds that following the express agreement of the applicant’s legal successor to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above complaint. 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 in so far as it relates to the above complaint.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained about the interference with the exercise of his right to respect for his private life.
Having carefully examined this complaint, the Court finds that the applicant failed to raise it before the domestic authorities.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy