FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41591/04
by Aleksandr Viktorovich VOLKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application lodged with the Court on 14 September 2004 by Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich Volkov, a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y.V. Yefremova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mrs V. Milinchuk and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
On 1 September 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in the Salavat police department from 7 April 2004 until 9 April 2004 and a lack of effective domestic remedy in this respect.
On 12 and 17 March 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 4,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 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	
	Registrar	President