European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Aleksei PERVUSHIN and Others v Estonia - 54091/08 [2001] ECHR 391 (2 March 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/391.html
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
54091/08
by Aleksei PERVUSHIN and Others
against Estonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer
Lorenzen,
President,
Renate
Jaeger,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Rait
Maruste,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana
Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Claudia
Westerdiek, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Aleksei Pervushin, Ms Irina Nagaitseva and Mr Vladislav Voronov, are Estonian nationals who were born in 1968, 1969 and 1970 respectively and live in Tallinn. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Pilv, a lawyer practising in Tallinn. The Estonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kuurberg.
On 29 September 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicants’ complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings, which began on 2 April 2001 and ended on 7 July 2008.
On 5 January and 7 January 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Estonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay them 2,000 euros each to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Estonian kroons at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. These sums would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month 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 payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen
Registrar President