FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 60744/08 and 65419/09 Nikolay Yevgenyevich PTITSYN against Russia and Sergey Fedorovich KARKISHCHENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 27 January 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 applications lodged on 30 September 2008 and 24 November 2009 respectively,

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government on 16 and 19 October 2012 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant in the first case, Mr Nikolay Yevgenyevich Ptitsyn , is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Ivanovo . He was represented before the Court by Ms I.Ye. Sokolova , a lawyer practising in Ivanovo .

The applicant in the second case, Mr Sergey Fedorovich Karkishchenko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Saint-Petersburg .

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

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour. The applicant in the case no. 65419/09 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of effective domestic remedies against the delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour.

The applications were communicated to the Government.

B y their letter s dated 16 and 19 October 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application s .

They acknowledged the lengthy enforcement of judgments in the applicants ’ favour. By their declaration of 19 October 2012 t hey undertook to pay Mr Ptitsyn a sum of 6,500 euros (EUR) as a compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage and 20,000 roubles (RUB) as a compensation for legal services of a lawyer, RUB 3,770 roubles for translation and RUB 890.64 – for postal expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. By their declaration of 16 October 2012 they undertook to pay Mr Karkishchenko a sum of EUR 1080 as just satisfaction, plus any t ax that may be chargeable on that amount .

On 26 November 2012 the Court received a letter from Mr Karkishchenko and on 31 January 2014 – from Mr Ptitsyn. In those letters the applicant s informed the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration s .

THE LAW

Having regard to the similarity of the issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.

A. Complaints about the length of proceedings

The Court finds that following the applicant s ’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case s should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties.

In the light of the applicants ’ agreement with the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 (b) is applicable in the present case in so far as the complaints about the length of proceedings are concerned. Accordingly, that part of applications should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.

B. Complaint of lack of an effective domestic remedy

The applicant in the case no. 65419/09 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings.

The Government did not specify their position in relation to this complaint.

The Court takes cognisance of the existence of a new remedy against excessive length of proceedings introduced by the federal laws â„– 68- FZ and â„– 69- FZ on 4 May 2010 in the wake of the pilot judgment adopted in the case of Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 33509/04, ECHR 2009 ) .

On 23 September 2010 the Court decided that all new cases introduced after the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment, cited above, and falling within the scope of the new domestic remedy had to be submitted in the first place to the national courts (see Fakhretdinov and Others , cited above, § 32). The Court also stated that its position may be subject to review in the future, depending in particular on the domestic courts ’ capacity to establish consistent practice under the new law in line with the Convention requirements (ibid, § 33).

Finally, the Court notes that the applicant w as in principle enabled to claim compensation under the transitional provisions of the new law and that he will in any event receive pecuniary compensation in respect of hi s grievances in accordance with the Government ’ s declarations examined above.

Having regard to these special circumstances, the Court does not find it necessary to continue a separa te examination of the complaint under Article 13 in the present case (see, Zemlyanskiy and Others v. Russia (dec.) , nos. 18969/06 et al., 13 March 2012 and Pobudilina and Others v. Russia (dec.) , nos. 7142/05 et al., 29 March 2011).

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 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention in so far as it relates to the complaint about the prolonged non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants ’ favour;

Decides that there is no need for separate examination of the complaint of lack of an effective remedy .

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No

Application number, date of lodging

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Name of the court Date of the judgment

Judgment became final on

Enforcement status, delay in enforcement

Unilateral remedial offer

60744/08

30/09 /200 8

Nikolay Yevgenyevich PTITSYN 09/05/1965

Ivanovo

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo

08/12/1999

25/01/2000

Enforced on 02/11/2009

9 years 9 months

EUR 6,500

(non-pecuniary damage)

RUB 24,660.64

(pecuniary damage)

65419/09

24/11/2009

Sergey Fedorovich KARKISHCHENKO

25/11 / 1978

St. Petersburg

St. Petersburg Military Court 07/05/2009

22/06/2009

Enforced on 30/07/2010

1 year 1 month

EUR 1.080