THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5937/05
Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich YEMELYANOV against Russia
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 2016 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 applications lodged on various dates,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various dates requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.
The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Russian Government.
By letters submitted on various dates the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
In these declarations, the Government acknowledged that all the applicants had been detained without “relevant and sufficient” grounds on the basis of decisions rendered by Russian courts which had not complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction:
(a) 1,200 euros (EUR) to Mr Yemelyanov for his pre-trial detention “between 26 March and 24 November 2004 and between 15 June and 5 October 2005” (11 months and 20 days);
(b)EUR 4,200 to Mr Kachurin for his pre-trial detention “between 2 April 2004 and 27 September 2007” (3 years, 5 months, and 26 days);
(c)EUR 1,450 to Mr Pavlenko for his pre-trial detention “between 24 November 2007 and 28 January 2009” (1 year, 2 months, and 5 days);
(d)EUR 1,450 to Ms Petrova for her pre-trial detention “between 24 November 2007 and 28 January 2009” (1 year, 2 months, and 5 days);
(e)EUR 2,250 to Mr Kalinin for his pre-trial detention “between 13 April 2007 and 11 February 2009” (1 year, 10 months and 1 day);
(f)EUR 950 to Ms Zakirova for her pre-trial detention “between 15 April 2009 and 26 January 2010” (9 months and 12 days);
(g)EUR 1,800 to Mr Burkov for his pre-trial detention “between 24 January 2013 and 9 July 2014” (1 year, 5 months, 14 days);
(h)EUR 1,350 to Mr Yashchenkov for his pre-trial detention “between 26 June 2012 and 1 August 2013” (1 year, 1 month, and 6 days).
The remainder of their declarations provided as follows:
“The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
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 said 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications,
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 September 2016.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
5937/05
19/01/2005
Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich YEMELYANOV
16/03/1978
Lyubertsy
31936/07
28/05/2007
Oleg Nikolayevich KACHURIN
02/08/1974
Tula
30940/09
14/05/2009
Aleksey Andreyevich PAVLENKO
25/09/1983
Moscow
Anatoliy Vladimirovich IVLEV
33647/09
20/05/2009
Mariya Viktorovna PETROVA
19/11/1965
Moscow
Anatoliy Vladimirovich IVLEV
46805/09
15/07/2009
Andrey Vasilyevich KALININ
27/09/1974
Rubtsovsk
8441/10
21/01/2010
Angelina Takhirovna ZAKIROVA
18/07/1981
Bogoroditsk
Aleksandr Anatolyevich MAKLIN
50094/13
12/07/2013
Igor Olegovich BURKOV
07/09/1977
Kirov
73343/13
12/11/2013
Pavel Vasilyevyich YASHCHENKOV
20/07/1964
St Petersbourg
Aleksandr Valeryevich MELESHKO
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy