CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 janvier 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 42618/07 Nikita Viktorovich KLYACHIN against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   January 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on different dates set out in the appendix to this decision, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on different dates 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 pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long or that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons. 4.     The applications were 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 asked the Court to strike out the applications, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 6.     In the above-mentioned 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)     4,200 euros (EUR) to Mr Klyachin for his pre-trial detention “between 2 April 2007 and 5 October 2010”; (b)     EUR 3,000 to Ms Belskaya for her pre-trial detention “between 22   May 2008 and 15 November 2010”; (c)     EUR 2,550 to Mr Bezzateyev for his pre-trial detention “between 2   September 2008 and 6 October 2010”; (d)     EUR 1,000 to Mr Petrenko for his pre-trial detention “between 2   December 2010 and 20 September 2011”; (e)     EUR 3,200 to Mr Timofeyev for his pre-trial detention “between 1   February 2011 and 30 September 2013”; (f)     EUR 5,700 to Mr Vinokurov for his pre-trial detention “between 1   September 2009 and 22 May 2014”; (g)     EUR 1,200 to Mr Magomedov for his pre-trial detention “between 6   July 2012 and 9 July 2013”; (h)     EUR 3,700 to Mr Kalinin for his pre-trial detention “between 5   March 2012 and 6 April 2015”; and (i)     EUR 1,900 to Mr Bulatov for his pre-trial detention “between 16   November 2012 and 20 June 2014”. 7.     The remainder of each declaration 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 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 observes 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 lengthy pre-trial detention in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no.   47095/99, §§ 104-121 ECHR 2002 VI), it has found in more than one hundred cases against Russia a violation of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention on account of an excessively lengthy pre ‑ trial detention on remand without proper justification. 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 does not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and has explicitly acknowledged that their pre-trial detention was 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 as just satisfaction. 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 the event of a delay in settlement. 16.     The Court is satisfied that the proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar 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 examining these cases. The Court is 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 cases. 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 respondent Government’s declarations 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 11 February 2016.   Marialena Tsirli   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   42618/07 25/08/2007 Nikita Viktorovich KLYACHIN 18/04/1986 Novosibirsk     17385/09 27/11/2008 Tatyana Vladimirovna BELSKAYA 01/01/1960 Moscow     13186/11 03/02/2011 Andrey Vladimirovich BEZZATEYEV 30/09/1978 Solikamsk     39137/11 17/05/2011 Aleksandr Vladimirovich PETRENKO 03/04/1975 Ljubljana     74023/11 25/11/2011 Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV 04/11/1966 Khabarovsk     54172/12 28/07/2012 Ivan Mikhaylovich VINOKUROV 03/03/1979 Kokhma, Ivanovo Region     21418/13 28/02/2013 Dalgat Bagavdinovich MAGOMEDOV 09/04/1972 Nizhniy Novgorod Mikhail IOFFE   26321/13 14/02/2013 Denis Mikhaylovich KALININ 16/05/1980 Cherepovets, Vologda Region Marat Munirovich ZINNATULLIN   27774/14 20/03/2014 Stanislav Nikolayevich BULATOV 06/10/1977 Nizhniye Vyazovyye, Tatarstan