FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3034/07
Dmitriy Gennadyevich ZHURAVLEV
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,
Erik Møse, judges
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the Government and the applicant’s acceptance of its terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Gennadyevich Zhuravlev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Misakyan, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention and the procedural flaws during its extension by the Russian courts.
4. By letter submitted on 26 September 2014, 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 that the applicant had been “detained without well-founded justification on the basis of the decisions rendered by the courts of Moscow, which did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and there was breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention due to the applicant’s absence from the cassational instance court hearings of 27 June and 30 August 2006”. The Government stated their readiness to pay 5,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant 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 case.
5. In his letter of 20 November 2014, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
THE LAW
6. The Court considers that the applicant’s agreement to the terms of the declaration 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).
7. 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 application.
8. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
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 19 February 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy