FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 53773/07 Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BALANDIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 21 April 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 6 March 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to the declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Aleksandrovich Balandin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and is now detained in Ulan-Ude .

2 . The Russian Government were rep resented before the Court by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3. On 2 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of multiple murders. On 4 December 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude remanded him in custody.

4. On 20 December 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya quashed the detention order of 4 December 2002 on the ground that it did not specify the authorised detention period. It remitted the remand matter for a new hearing.

5. On 26 December 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a new detention order valid until 26 January 2003.

6. On 29 June 2006, by a jury trial, the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five years ’ imprisonment in a high-security facility. On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal.

7. In 2010, the applicant sued the Ulan-Ude police and the Ministry of Finance for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred on account of his unlawful detention from 4 to 26 December 2012.

8. On 29 June 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude rejected the claim, finding that no fault on the part of the police could be established.

9. On 19 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya upheld the judgment on appeal.

COMPLAINT

10. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he had been refused compensation for his unlawful detention.

THE LAW

11 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, o n 19 December 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged that the re was a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in that the applicant had not obtained compensation for his unlawful detention from 4 to 2 6 December 2002 . They stated their readiness to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 5,000 as just satisfaction covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The sum was payable free of any applicable taxes within three months of the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay within that period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on the sum from the 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 Government requested the Court to strike it out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

12 . By letter of 17 February 2014 , the applicant rejected the Government ’ s offer. He wished to have his conviction reversed .

13 . The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”

14 . It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

15 . To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).

16 . The Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledged the violation of the applicant ’ s right to compensation for unlawful detention. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant, the proposed sum does not appear to be unreasonable . The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of th at sum within three months of the Court ’ s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.

17 . The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case. As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the Abashev judgment (see Abashev v. Russia , no. 9096/09 , 27 June 2013 ) concerning the same Convention provision, the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) does not require it to continue the examination of the case. In any event, the Court ’ s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to re store, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the applications to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia ( dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).

18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 May 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President