CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 60687/08 Galina Petrovna POTAPOVA and Petr Vasilyevich POTAPOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   December 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 13 November 2008, 2   March 2010 and 9 August 2010, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 17 July 2014 and 10 April 2015 and requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that 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. On 18 March 2013 and 15 December 2014 the applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Russian Government. By letters of 17 July 2014 and 10 April 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration 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 that declaration, 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)     2,450 euros (EUR) to Mr Potapov for his pre-trial detention “between 13 June 2006 and 25 June 2008” (2 years and 13 days); (b)     EUR 3,400 to Mr Bortnichuk for his pre-trial detention “between 29   May 2008 and 28 March 2011” (2 years and 10 months); (c)     EUR 3,800 to Mr Natochiy for his pre-trial detention between “31   May 2008 and 18 July 2011” (3 years, 1 month, 19 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 14 January 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   60687/08 13/11/2008 Galina Petrovna POTAPOVA 01/06/1957 Volgograd Petr Vasilyevich POTAPOV 30/04/1986 Volzhskiy, Volgograd Region         17609/10 02/03/2010 Petr Yuryevich BORTNICHUK 12/11/1976 Chelyabinsk       55179/10 09/08/2010 Nikolay Nikolayevich NATOCHIY 30/09/1968 Starodzhereliyevskaya village, Krasnodar Region   Mariam Iosifovna SAGRADYAN