FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3585/04 by Viktor Viktorovich BUTENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 August 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Christos Rozakis , President, Nina Vajić , Anatoly Kovler , Elisabeth Steiner , Khanlar Hajiyev , Giorgio Malinverni , George Nicolaou , judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2003,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Viktorovich Butenko , is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zernograd , a town in the Rostov Region . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk , the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

As a victim of Chernobyl , the applicant was entitled to social benefits. On 22 October 1999 and 29 July 2003 the Zernograd Town Court awarded the applicant benefits underpaid by the local welfare authority. These judgments became binding on 2 November 1999 and 3 September 2003 respectively, but were not enforced immediately.

On 6 April 2006 the Town Court gave a new judgment in the applicant ’ s favour replacing the two above judgments. This judgment was enforced by 19 October 2007.

B. Relevant domestic law

Under s ection 9 of the Federal Law o n Enforc e ment Proceedings of 21 July 1997, a bailiff must enforce a judgment with in two months. Under s e c tion 242.2.6 of the Budget Code of 31 July 1998, the Ministry of Finance must e n force a judgment with in three months.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article s 6, 13, and 14 of the Convention , and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgments.

2. With regard to the proceedings that ended with the judgment of 3 September 2003, the applicant complained under the same Articles that the courts had been partial, that they had misinterpreted law, that they had rejected his arguments, that they had discriminated against him, and that the proceedings had been unreasonably long.

THE LAW

On 15 February 2008 the welfare authority and the applicant signed a friendly-settlement agreement by the terms of which:

“ 1. [T]he [welfare authority] pledged to pay to the applicant 3,500 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the delayed enforcement of [the judgments] to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement. This sum was to be exempted from any tax that might be chargeable and was to be paid within three months from the date on which the European Court of Human Rights would find a friendly settlement and strike the case out of its list. This payment would constitute a final resolution of the application.

2. The applicant declared that if the conditions of section 1 had been respected, he would have no more claims against [the State] based on the facts contained in his application to the European Court .”

On 14 March 2008 the Zernogradsk Town Court confirmed this friendly settlement.

The Court 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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis Registrar President