CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 2016

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s98AB28CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 36108/10 Boris Samuilovich SHAFRAY against Russia and 12 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, 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’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list insofar as they relate to the inadequate conditions of detention. The applicant in case no. 45483/14 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of application no. 45483/14 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention insofar as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention; Declares the remainder of application no. 45483/14 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     36108/10 06/05/2010 Boris Samuilovich SHAFRAY 06/10/1951         04/02/2016 27/07/2016 5,250     55232/10 11/08/2010 Andrey Aleksandrovich ODINTSOV 24/07/1972         04/02/2016 29/06/2016 3,500     55601/10 23/08/2010 Sergey Igorevich ZYABKOV 31/12/1982         04/02/2016 06/07/2016 3,500     67588/11 21/09/2011 Vitaliy Pavlovich VOROBYEV 19/11/1983         18/03/2016 08/07/2016 8,125     35064/14 15/10/2014 Nikolay Vasilyevich VASILYEV 17/11/1954       04/02/2016 01/07/2016 3,880     38036/14 11/08/2014 Vasiliy Aleksandrovich ANISIMOV 13/09/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/03/2016 28/07/2016 6,875     45483/14 21/05/2015 Dmitriy Sergeyevich KLYKANOV 14/09/1978         18/03/2016 07/07/2016 11,875     63817/14 27/10/2014 Eduard Nikolayevich DRUGOV 13/03/1977       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 04/02/2016 20/07/2016 4,155     74590/14 15/11/2014 Boris Vladimirovich DOSTOVALOV 06/08/1979 Denisov Vyacheslav Yuryevich Novosibirsk   04/02/2016 12/07/2016 8,375   18199/15 07/04/2015 Viktor Vasilyevich TRIFONOV 30/08/1984 Budkevich Tatyana Georgiyevna Pervouralsk   04/02/2016 07/07/2016 7,375   26208/15 27/04/2015 Stanislav Nikolayevich BULATOV 06/10/1977         18/03/2016 13/07/2016 7,875   34121/15 17/06/2015 Olga Yevgenyevna ZAGIROVA 04/09/1971   Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Rostov-na-Donu   18/03/2016 01/07/2016 10,500   46215/15 10/09/2015 Arseniy Yuryevich MIROSHNICHENKO 13/01/1990         18/03/2016 21/07/2016 16,375   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.