CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 2401/20 Magafura Asagatovna NAKONECHNAYA against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   March 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   December 2019, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. Her complaints under Article 8 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning her son’s allocation to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Court notes from the outset that it has already examined the similar complaints lodged by the applicant’s son Mr A. Nakonechnyy (application no. 21081/18). It further observes that Mr Nakonechnyy’s case was struck out of its list of cases on the basis of a friendly settlement between the parties (see Kiselev and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 66687/09 and 32 other applications, 3   December 2020). The Court also notes that on 3 September 2021 Mr Nakonechnyy was released upon completion of his sentence. Regard being had to the above, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining the merits of the applicant’s complaints, for the reasons set out below. The Court reiterates that, under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, it may “at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that ... the matter has been resolved...”. To be able to conclude that this provision applies to the instant case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, it must ask whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Pisano v.   Italy [GC] (striking out), no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002). The Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. Her son no longer serves a prison sentence. The Court also accepts that the friendly settlement accepted by the applicant’s son constituted an adequate and sufficient remedy in respect of her grievances, regard being had to the nature of the application and the fact that the applicant and her son belong to the same household. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court concludes that both conditions for the application of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention are met in the instant case. The matter giving rise to this complaint can therefore now be considered to be “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b). The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article   37   §   1 in fine . Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 July 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   8 § 1 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Detention facility Family member Place of residence of the family member Approximate distance between the facility and the place of residence of the family members (in km) 2401/20 17/12/2019 Magafura Asagatovna NAKONECHNAYA 1959 IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region the applicant is the mother of a detainee Zaozernyy, Krasnoyarsk Region 3,000