THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 1601/07 and 9388/07 Vladimir Alekseyevich MALTSEV against Russia and Tatyana Nikolayevna KAMENSKAYA against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Alena Poláčková , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 November 2006 and 13 February 2007 respectively,

Having regard to the decision to apply the pilot-judgment procedure taken in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009),

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 5 May 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to that declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants ’ personal details appear in the Appendix.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure by the national authorities to enforce final court decisions listed in the Appendix.

On 7 January 2016 the applications were communicated to the Government.

On 5 May 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of the judgments delivered in the applicants ’ favour and stated their readiness to pay the applicants the amounts listed in the Appendix as just satisfaction. The payments were to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, together with any costs and expenses, and would be free of any taxes that may be chargeable. The amounts would be converted into the national currency of the Russian Federation at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and would be payable 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 the sums within that period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 payments would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

On the dates specified in the Appendix, the Court received letters from the applicant s informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations. Ms Kamenskaya entirely accepted the declaration in her case. Mr Maltsev accepted the Government ’ s acknowledgment of the violation and agreed to the sum offered. He did not request the adversarial proceedings in his case to be continued, wishing only that his application be struck out after the payment.

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 finds that following the applicants ’ express agreements to the terms of the declarations made by the Government the cases should be treated 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).

It 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.

In any event the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise the execution of the terms of the friendly settlement as set out in the present decision (Article 39 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Further, in any event the Court ’ s present ruling is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the present applications to its list of cases.

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 6 April 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Nationality

The domestic judgment(s)

Taken on

Final on

Date of the unilateral declaration and compensation offered (euro)

Acceptance of the declaration by the applicant received on

1601/07

21/11/2006

Vladimir Alekseyevich MALTSEV

21/07/1961

St Petersburg

Russian

The Justice of the Peace of the Court Circuit No. 2 of St Petersburg

11/07/2005

03/04/2006

05/05/2016

2,050

05/07/2016

9388/07

13/02/2007

Tatyana Nikolayevna KAMENSKAYA

04/07/1971

Moscow

Russian

Moscow City Court

27/11/2003

n/a

Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow

26/12/2007

04/03/2008

05/05/2016

2,150

11/07/2016