CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 43720/06 Yuriy Ivanovich MURASHKO against Russia and three other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 March 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 the dates listed in the appendix, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the Government and the applicants’ acceptance of their terms, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. 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 applicants complained, in particular, about the conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities. 4.     By letters submitted on 3 October and 15 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 detained “in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention”. The Government stated their readiness to pay 8,250 euros (EUR) to Mr Murashko, EUR 7,375 to Mr Kondratyev, EUR 4,805 to Mr   Vostrikov, and EUR 6,305 to Mr Akilov 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. 5.     In response, the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations. THE LAW 6.     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. 7.     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). 8.     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. 9.     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 Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   43720/06 15/09/2006 Yuriy Ivanovich MURASHKO 11/11/1949 Omsk       18107/08 30/01/2008 Mikhail Yuryevich KONDRATYEV 09/11/1979 Samara       46518/08 09/08/2008 Sergey Vladimirovich VOSTRIKOV 05/05/1975 Astrakhan   Galina Gennadyevna ALMAYEVA   62860/09 16/11/2009 Nikolay Vladimirovich AKILOV 07/08/1968 Astrakhan   Konstantin Borisovich KOZHANOV