CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .sEAF98D1B { width:7.13pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0836E8C { width:7.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2BEEA238 { width:10.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC596190 { width:11.14pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5E43094 { width:3.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 31666/07 Dmitriy Igorevich ZYUBAN against Russia and 13 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various 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 A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained that the period of their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons. The applications were communicated to the Government. On various 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. 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)   1,550 euros (EUR) to Mr Zyuban for his pre-trial detention between 28 January 2007 and 5 May 2008; (b)   EUR 4,400 to Mr Matveyev for his pre-trial detention between 27   February 2009 and 26 January 2010; (c)   EUR 2,900 to Mr Satyukov for his pre-trial detention between 12   May 2009 and 29 September 2011; (d)   EUR 2,850 to Mr Podolin for his pre-trial detention between 18   December 2007 and 30 April 2010; (e)   EUR 950 to Mr Rozhenko for his pre-trial detention between 3   September 2009 and 16 June 2010; (f)   EUR 2,550 to Mr Dubinkin for his pre-trial detention between 19   November 2009 and 27 December 2011; (g)   EUR 1,350 to Mr Mayorov for his pre-trial detention between 29   September 2009 and 2 November 2010; (h)   EUR 2,300 to Mr Davydov for his pre-trial detention between 28   April 2009 and 28 March 2011; (i)   EUR 1,300 to Mr Bugayev for his pre-trial detention between 29   October 2009 and 26 November 2010; (j)   EUR 1,450 to Mr Korchagin for his pre-trial detention between 5   February 2010 and 20 April 2011; (k)   EUR 3,100 to Mr Ivanov for his pre-trial detention between 25 May 2010 and 18 December 2012; (l)   EUR 1,000 to Ms Repina for her pre-trial detention between 21   October 2011 and 17 August 2012; (m)   EUR 2,640 to Mr Yelchev for his pre-trial detention between 25   February 2012 and 25 June 2013; (n)   EUR 2,050 to Mr Demin for his pre-trial detention between 31   October 2012 and 18 July 2014. 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.” 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 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. 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.” 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. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations 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). 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 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. 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. 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. The Court is satisfied that the proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Yuriy Yakovlev v.   Russia , no. 5453/08, § 95, 29 April 2010; Valeriy Kovalenko v.   Russia , no. 41716/08, § 67, 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia , no.   29985/05, § 49, 19   June 2012). 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 that it might take to restore the applications, pursuant to Article   37 § 2 of the Convention, to its list of cases should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations (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). 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 21 July 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   31666/07 05/07/2007 Dmitriy Igorevich ZYUBAN 03/04/1959 Kursk       15615/09 25/02/2009 Denis Vladimirovich MATVEYEV 06/07/1979 Kirovskiy       9546/10 03/02/2010 Andrey Nikolayevich SATYUKOV 01/01/1985 Angarsk       23667/10 30/03/2010 Yevgeniy Maryanovich PODOLIN 05/04/1967 Moscow       26372/10 22/03/2010 Andrey Ignatyevich ROZHENKO 06/09/1981 Kostomuksha       37048/10 07/06/2010 Sergey Vasilyevich DUBINKIN 09/03/1955 Yekaterinburg   Mikhail Ivanovich TREPASHKIN   43419/10 05/07/2010 Yevgeniy Muratovich MAYOROV 08/06/1975 Omsk       59771/10 20/09/2010 Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV 08/08/1970 Kyshtym       74851/10 27/11/2009 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich BUGAYEV 28/03/1979 Usinsk                 13678/11 28/01/2011 Sergey Yevgenyevich KORCHAGIN 17/01/1962 Moscow   Vladimir Vladimirovich GERALTOVSKIY             31980/12 06/05/2012 Andrey Yuryevich IVANOV 11/12/1971 Kashira   Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN             5494/13 05/12/2012 Yelena Olegovna REPINA 15/02/1964 St Petersburg                 10172/13 14/01/2013 Gennadiy Konstantinovich YELCHEV 18/05/1952 Komsomolsk-On-Amour                 50191/13 02/06/2013 Aleksandr Valentinovich DEMIN 03/10/1983 Bessonovka