CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s529BF6EF { page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 3 February 2016 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   Application no. 46320/07 Maksim Sergeyevich KOKORIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25   August 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   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, inadequate conditions of transport between facilities and defects of 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 or their transport between facilities. The applicants Mr Kovalev and Mr Klimnenko complained that certain aspects of their detention were 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: 6,250 euros (EUR) to Mr Kokorin, EUR 4,480 to Mr Yesin, EUR   3,500 to Mr Anchugov, EUR 4,100 to Mr Belov, EUR 3,700 to Mr   Ibatulin, EUR 4,160 to Mr Kovalev, EUR 5,750 to Mr Vereshchagin, EUR   6,175 to Mr Goryunkov, and EUR 7,440 to Mr Klimnenko. 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.     Since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and an excessive length of pre-trial detention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no.   47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), the Court has found similar violations in many cases against Russia which concerned inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in police wards (see Khristoforov v.   Russia , no.   11336/06, 29   April 2010), remand prisons (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012) and correctional colonies (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no.   5993/08, 28   November 2013), as well as conditions of transport (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 108, 22 May 2012). The Court has already found violations in many cases where the formalisation of an applicant’s status as an arrested crime suspect was delayed without reasonable explanation (see, most recently, Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06, 18 September 2014). 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 proposed sums do not correspond exactly to the awards the Court made in similar cases, they are not unreasonable in absolute terms or in relation to the duration of the applicants’ detention. 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 further complaints about the conditions of their detention in other facilities, the conditions of their transport between facilities or alleged defects in the civil or criminal proceedings, to which they were parties. 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 17 September 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   46320/07 26/09/2007 Maksim Sergeyevich KOKORIN 25/02/1977 Novodvinsk       30282/08 03/04/2008 Aleksandr Andreyevich YESIN 31/05/1958 Sorda       51457/08 01/08/2008 Sergey Borisovich ANCHUGOV 05/10/1971 Moscou       54871/08 29/07/2008 Pavel Aleksandrovich BELOV 03/07/1981 Tver       60324/08 17/09/2008 Rafael Ruslanovich [1] IBATULIN 04/06/1983 Vyborg   Marina Aleksandrovna BELINSKAYA   23952/09 04/04/2009 Boris Aleksandrovich KOVALEV 09/09/1978 Tomsk         32071/09 08/11/2010 Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN 03/06/1989 Kochubeyevskoye       38993/09 19/11/2012 Sergey Nikolayevich GORYUNKOV 20/02/1972 St Petersburg       55508/09 16/09/2009 Dmitriy Vladimirovich KLIMNENKO 13/01/1975 Shara-Gorokhon                 30362/12 20/01/2012 Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN 03/06/1989 Kochubeyevskoye       [1] .     Rectified on 3 February 2016: the text was “Rafael Rustamovich”.