CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 septembre 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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 54303/07 Igor Nikolayevich ROGOZHNIKOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8   September 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 8 October 2007, 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 pre-trial detention 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)     1,200 euros (EUR) to Mr Rogozhnikov for his pre-trial detention “between 3 November 2006 and 27 October 2007”; (b)     2,450 EUR to Mr Tishkov for his pre-trial detention “between 24   August 2007 and 26 August 2009”; (c)     1,550 EUR to Mr Mudrov for his pre-trial detention “between 11   April 2008 and 14 July 2009”; (d)     1,350 EUR to Mr Gora for his pre-trial detention “between 16   February 2009 and 23 March 2010”; (e)     1,450 EUR to Ms Kuznetsova for her pre-trial detention “between 10   February 2009 and 16 April 2010”; and (f)     1,200 EUR to Ms Shakhiyeva for her pre-trial detention “between 24   March 2010 and 10 March 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. 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 excessive length of 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 without proper justification in more than a hundred 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 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 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. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the cases. 19.     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 1 October 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   54303/07 08/10/2007 Igor Nikolayevich ROGOZHNIKOV 20/12/1968 Saratov       32267/09 12/05/2009 Sergey Alekseyevich TISHKOV 24/09/1978 St Petersburg   Aleksey Mikhaylovich KUZMIN   48771/09 16/08/2009 Denis Vladimirovich MUDROV 15/06/1977 Ulyanovsk       66045/09 30/11/2009 Oleg Borisovich GORA 23/08/1962 Omsk       58648/10 13/09/2010 Galina Nikolayevna KUZNETSOVA 06/06/1960 Bogoroditsk       62879/10 14/10/2010 Zuleta Beslanovna SHAKHIYEVA 26/09/1986 Zelenokuvsk   Kurman-Ali Khyzyrovich BOLATCHIYEV