CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 février 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 20830/07 Savarbek Bagaudinovich KHUCHBAROV against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18   February 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Julia Laffranque,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates listed in the appendix, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having regard to the Court’s decision of 17 September 2013 in the cases and the Government’s request to restore the cases to the list in order to effect a number of amendments, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants complained, among other matters, about poor conditions of their pre-trial detention. In addition, Mr Khuchbarov and Mr   Neretin complained that their pre-trial detention had been excessively long in the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds. 4.     The applications have been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The Court notes that in its decision of 17 September 2013, the declarations of the Government concerning the applications were considered as dealing with the conditions of detention issue only. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to restore the applications to its list and make a new examination of the applicants’ complaints. A.     Joinder of the applications 6.     Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision. B.     The complaints concerning inhuman or degrading conditions of detention and an excessive length of pre-trial detention 7.     All the applicants complained that the conditions of their pre-trial detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.     Mr Khuchbarov and Mr Neretin also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their pre-trial detention had been excessively long or that there existed no relevant and sufficient grounds for it. The relevant parts of Article   5 provide: “1.     Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (c)     the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ... 3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 9.     By letters dated 5 December 2012 and 13, 19 and 26 March 2013, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 10.     By the above declarations, the Russian authorities acknowledged that the applicants were detained in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, and also that Mr   Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s detention did not comply with Article   5   § 3 of the Convention. The Government stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction: 14,655   euros (EUR) to Mr Khuchbarov, EUR 5,825 to Mr Neretin, EUR   8,750 to Mr   Kolesov, EUR 10,250 to Mr Yantsen, EUR 4,200 to Mr   Karyy, EUR 4,000 to Mr   Kozhevnikov, EUR 6,500 to Mr Kyazymov, EUR 5,125 to Mr   Kurnosov, EUR 5,500 to Mr Podshivalov, EUR 4,610 to Mr Gunko and EUR 4,610 to Mr Loginov. 11.     The remainder of the declaration in each case read as follows: “The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” 12.     By their separate letters of various dates, the applicants rejected the Government’s offers in whole or in part. Some of them expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were too low, whereas others insisted that the Court should examine their other complaints. 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 declaration 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 notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian pre-trial remand centres (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), it has found a violation of Article 3 on account of similar conditions of detention in more than ninety cases raising comparable issues. Most recently, the Court has adopted a pilot judgment concerning the structural problem of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court. 17.     As to the complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, starting from the Kalashnikov judgment (cited above, §§ 104-121), the Court has held in over eighty cases against Russia that a lengthy pre-trial detention devoid of relevant and sufficient grounds was incompatible with the guarantees of Article 5 of the Convention. Having regard to the recurrent nature of this grievance (see Zherebin v. Russia and 9 Other Applications (dec.), no.   51445/09, § 3, 13 November 2012), the Court finds it to be the subject of its well-established case-law. 18.     Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and explicitly acknowledged that the conditions of their detention had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and that Mr Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s pre-trial detention fell short of the guarantees of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 19.     As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them certain amounts of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. Even if the method of calculation employed by the Russian authorities in respect of the conditions-of-detention complaints did not correspond exactly to the guidelines established by the Court in the pilot judgment (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, § 172), what is important is that the proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, § 105, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of those sums within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement. 20.     The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicants’ detention, and, as regards Mr Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s cases, also in the part concerning the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for their pre-trial detention or its excessive length. As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgments concerning the same issues, 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 these parts of the cases. In any event, the Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, 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). 21.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicants’ pre-trial detention, and Mr Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s cases also in the part concerning the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for their pre-trial detention or its excessive length. C.     The other complaints 22.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. 23.     Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of their applications. 24.     It follows that the applications in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to restore the applications to its list of cases; Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declarations concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and in addition, Mr   Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s complaints under Article 5 § 3, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as they concerned the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of pre-trial detention and the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for Mr   Khuchbarov’s and Mr Neretin’s pre-trial detention or its excessive length; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   20830/07 29/03/2007 Savarbek Bagaudinovich KHUCHBAROV 30/03/1966 Chelyabinsk       36948/07 22/06/2007 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich NERETIN 22/09/1988 Tula       12480/09 26/01/2009 Vasiliy Igorevich KOLESOV 17/10/1972 Vorkuta       45280/09 04/08/2009 Denis Yakovlevich YANTSEN 26/10/1980 Yelizavetinka   Marina Aleksandrovna BELINSKAYA   49349/09 24/08/2009 Yuriy Anatolyevich KARYY 06/01/1970 Lesnyye Polyany       62842/09 28/10/2009 Aleksey Ivanovich KOZHEVNIKOV 01/01/1982 Ufa       7712/10 12/01/2010 Guseyn Iskenderovych KYAZYMOV 23/10/1986 Tomsk       61537/10 09/09/2010 Yuriy Yuryevich KURNOSOV 10/06/1985 Babushkino       46637/11 08/07/2011 Vladimir Vladimirovich PODSHIVALOV 27/12/1972 Kungur                 57669/11 22/08/2011 Petr Trofimovich GUNKO 23/09/1964 Sorda                 73160/11 01/11/2011 Ilya Alekseyevich LOGINOV 19/03/1981 Bor