CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s686FB63A { width:177.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 11588/05 Yuriy Nikolayevich PLATONOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   October 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges and Søren Prebensen, Acting 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’ reaction to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants complained that their detention on remand had been unreasonably long or that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons. 4.     On 3 February 2014 the applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government for observations. 5.     By letter of 2 April 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 6.     In the declarations, the Government acknowledged that all the applicants had been detained “without well-founded justification on the basis of the decisions rendered by the courts” which “did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction: (a)     2,960 euros (EUR) to Mr Platonov for his detention on remand “between 17 June 2003 and 6 December 2004”; (b)     EUR   5,040 to Mr   Bukin for his detention on remand “from 30   January 2004 to 15 January 2005 and from 12 January 2006 to 13 April 2007”; (c)     EUR 2,800 to Mr Gavrilin for his detention on remand “between 23   May 2005 and 11 October 2006”; (d)     EUR 2,160 to Mr   Lazarev for his detention on remand “between 16   February 2007 and 4 March 2008”; (e)     EUR 3,120 to Mr Cherkashin for his detention on remand “between 16 September 2007 and 13 April 2009”; (f)     EUR 6,160 to Mr Gizatullin for his detention on remand “between 17   December 2006 and 3 February 2011”; and (g)     EUR 6,240 to Mr Khanin for his detention on remand “between 30   December 2006 and 20 April 2011”. 7.     The remainder of their declarations provided as follows: “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 European Convention on Human Rights. 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.” 8.     The applicants were invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations, if they so wished. They submitted no comments in reply within the time-limit fixed by the Court. THE LAW 9.     Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. 10.     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”. 11.     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. 12.     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, 18 September 2007). 13.     The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the lengthy detention on remand in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no.   47095/99, §§ 104-121 ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), it has found a violation of Article   5 § 3 of the Convention on account of an excessively lengthy detention on remand without proper justification in more than eighty cases against Russia (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §   200, 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. 14.     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 their detention on remand had been in breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. 15.     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. 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. 16.     The Court is satisfied that the amounts of compensation proposed are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar Russian cases (see Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia , no.   41716/08, 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia , no.   29985/05, 19 June 2012). 17.     The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases. 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 the case. 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 Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006 and Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications, Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declarations concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 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.   Søren Prebensen   Khanlar Hajiyev Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   11588/05 06/12/2004 Yuriy Nikolayevich PLATONOV 09/04/1965 Michurinsk     30464/06 17/04/2006 Yuriy Petrovich BUKIN 16/04/1959 Oktyabrskiy     3298/07 05/11/2006 Denis Andreyevich GAVRILIN 03/12/1979 Moscow     50304/07 04/10/2007 Oleg Yuryevich LAZAREV 13/11/1961 Moscow Aleksandr Alekseyevich MELIKOV   16624/09 03/03/2009 Sergey Grigoryevich CHERKASHIN 02/02/1981 Snezhinsk     64078/09 08/11/2009 Irek Rashitovich GIZATULLIN 25/07/1978 Ufa     15751/10 14/02/2010 Arkadiy Anatolyevich KHANIN 28/04/1982 Ufa