CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 février 2015

.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 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sB2FC78EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s1E2C6DF { page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 45353/05 Valentin Ivanovich FATIN against Russia and nine other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17   February 2015 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, 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 detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and courthouses, inhuman conditions of transport between facilities and an excessive length of their pre-trial detention. 4.     The applications have been communicated to the Government . THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 5.     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 the conditions of detention or transport or alleged defects of the criminal proceedings 6.     The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and the conditions of their transport between facilities. Mr Fatin, Mr Tyatenko, Mr Kuznetsov and Mr Gusev also complained that their detention was in breach of the requirements of Article   5 of the Convention. 7.     By letters submitted on different dates, 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. 8.     By the above declarations, the Russian authorities acknowledged that the violations of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction: 11,375 euros (EUR) to Mr Fatin, EUR 5,720 to Mr Tyatenko, EUR   4,750 to Mr Kuritsyn, EUR 10,750 to Mr Pilyugin, EUR 6,330 to Mr   Kuznetsov, EUR 8,625 to Mr Makeyev, EUR 23,500 to Mr Shishkov, EUR   7,750 to Mr Mikhaylov, EUR 5,000 to Mr Guryev, and EUR 12,513 to Mr   Gusev. 9.     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.” 10.     The applicants did not accept the Government’s offer. 11.     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”. 12.     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. 13.     To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations 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). 14.     The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities, an excessive length of the pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), it found similar violations in more than a hundred cases against Russia. As to the complaint about the inhuman and degrading conditions of transport, the Court has found a similar violation in more than twenty cases against Russia (see, among many other authorities, Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, Moiseyev v. Russia , no.   62936/00, §§ 128-136, 9 October 2008 and Khudoyorov v. Russia , no.   6847/02, §§   110-120, ECHR 2005 ‑ X (extracts)). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court. 15.     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 the violations of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention. 16.     As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them 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 v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 172, 10 January 2012), 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. 17.     The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases in the part concerning the above-mentioned complaints. 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 this part 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 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). 18.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part concerning the above-mentioned complaints. C.     The other complaints 19.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols. 20.     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. 21.     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 join the applications, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike a part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   45353/05 08/10/2005 Valentin Ivanovich FATIN 31/03/1955 Orel       36029/07 31/07/2007 Vladimir Nikolayevich TYATENKO 07/04/1974 Salsk       51447/07 21/08/2007 Yuriy Nikolayevich KURITSYN 30/12/1961 Kazan       3908/08 15/03/2007 Sergey Viktorovich PILYUGIN 08/03/1963 Novoivanovskiy       51390/08 03/09/2008 Oleg Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV 17/08/1966 Zelenokumsk   Valeriy Mikhaylovich SHVETS   56156/08 27/09/2008 Igor Aleksandrovich MAKEYEV 30/12/1962 Kaliningrad   Mariya Valeryevna SAMORODKINA   50904/09 12/03/2010 Roman Anatolyevich SHISHKOV 09/08/1977 St Petersburg Aleksey Mikhaylovich KUZMIN   54590/10 28/07/2010 Mikhail Leonidovich MIKHAYLOV 20/01/1968 Skopin       34038/13 08/04/2013 Andrey Nikolayevich GURYEV 01/08/1987 Galich                 42023/13 30/01/2013 Aleksandr Borisovich GUSEV 20/12/1968 Yelets