CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 janvier 2015

.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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 34809/05 Sergey Alekseyevich TURISHCHEV 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 15 September 2005, 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 Sergey Alekseyevich Turishchev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Dubovka in the Volgograd Region. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.A. Kopylov, a lawyer practising in Volgograd. 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 Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. 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 the Volgograd Region, which did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively long in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention”. The Government stated their readiness to pay 3,000 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 1 November 2014, the applicant informed the Court that he 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 Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President