CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33338/07 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich MALYUGIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 June 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 and the applicants’ reply to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, 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.     The applications have been communicated to the Government. 5.     By letters submitted on different dates, 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)     1,250 euros (EUR) to Mr Malyugin for his pre-trial detention “between 7 July 2006 and 19 July 2007”; (b)     EUR 4,100 to Ms Muralene for her pre-trial detention “between 28   May 2005 and 24 October 2008”; (c)     EUR 4,800 to Mr Barakhov, for his pre-trial detention “between 8   June 2006 and 31 May 2010”; (d)     EUR 2,250 to Mr Nikonov for his pre-trial detention “between 26   March 2009 and 9 February 2011”; (e)     EUR 2,200 to Mr Piskalev for his pre-trial detention “between 5   October 2009 and 29 July 2011”; (f)     EUR 2,050 to Mr Sokolov for his pre-trial detention “between 8   December 2008 and 9 August 2010”; (g)     EUR 2,900 to Mr Fedorov for his pre-trial detention “between 12   February 2011 and 28 June 2013”; (h)     EUR 1,000 to Mr Popov for his pre-trial detention “between 17   December 2010 and 16 December 2011”; (i)     EUR 1,550 to Mr Dyatlov for his pre-trial detention “between 28   June 2012 and 30 September 2013”; and (j)     EUR 1,700 to Mr Nemtsev for his pre-trial detention “between 19   July 2012 and 23 December 2013”. 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.     By their separate letters of various dates, the applicants rejected the Government’s offers. They expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were insufficient. 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 even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. 12.     To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law (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 pre-trial detention 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 pre-trial detention on remand without proper justification in more than one hundred cases against Russia. 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 pre-trial detention 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 proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in similar Russian cases (see Dolgova v. Russia , no.   11886/05, §§ 54-56, 2 March 2006; Shcheglyuk v. Russia , no. 7649/02, §§   50-53, 14 December 2006; Yuriy Yakovlev v. Russia , no. 5453/08, §§   93 ‑ 95, 29 April 2010; Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia , no. 41716/08, 29   May 2012; Kislitsa v. Russia , no. 29985/05, 19 June 2012; and, by contrast, Topčić-Rosenberg v. Croatia , no. 19391/11, § 29, 14 November 2013). 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. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   33338/07 02/07/2007 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich MALYUGIN 01/05/1979 Saratov, Saratov Region       31022/09 05/05/2009 Irina Algisovna MURALENE 05/10/1961 Kemerovo, Kemerovo Region       44958/09 03/08/2009 Ivan Nikolayevich BARAKHOV 18/11/1982 Ussuriysk, Primorye Region   Lyudmila Pavlovna GLAZUNOVA   32616/10 12/04/2010 Dmitriy Vladimirovich NIKONOV 11/09/1974 Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region       51727/10 30/06/2010 Anton Vladimirovich PISKALEV 11/12/1983 Dubna, Moscow Region       62744/10 09/10/2010 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SOKOLOV 21/02/1977 Apraksino, Kostroma Region       28926/11 08/04/2011 Vladimir Borisovich FEDOROV 03/03/1962 Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Region       41070/11 05/06/2011 Viktor Anatolyevich POPOV 26/03/1980 Rostov-On-Don, Rostov Region   Konstantin Nikolayevich LUGANTSEV   35772/13 18/04/2013 Aleksey Konstantinovich DYATLOV 29/08/1976 Lesnoy, Mari El Republic                 46070/13 29/05/2013 Yulian Yevgenyevich NEMTSEV 11/12/1981 Syktyvkar, Komi Republic