FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 77950/11 and 44136/12
Stanislav Gennadyevich SAKHNOV against Russia
and Aleksandr Viktorovich CHEPICHENKO against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 1 December 2011 and 1 June 2012 respectively,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant in the first case, Mr Stanislav Gennadyevich Sakhnov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lived in Astrakhan. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Gordeyeva, a lawyer practising in Astrakhan.
The applicant in the second case, Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich Chepichenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lived in Novosibirsk.
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 applicants complained, in particular, about the conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities.
By letters submitted on 3 October and 22 November 2013, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They acknowledged that the applicants had been serving their sentences “in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention”. The Government stated their readiness to pay 5,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Sakhnov and EUR 3,565 to Mr Chepichenko as just satisfaction. The payment was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, together with any costs and expenses incurred, as well as any tax that may be chargeable. It would be effected 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 cases.
In their letters of different dates, the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.
The Court considers that the applicants’ agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government shall be considered 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).
The Court 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 applications.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications,
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy