CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s9D6935F5 { width:4.1%; 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 } .s4CB5ABC8 { width:10.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9A561969 { width:11.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D5CA36 { width:11.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD79D6BBD { width:13.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s13B9124F { width:13.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s4108D20F { width:14.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFE538EA8 { width:20.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sEFEE2430 { width:4.1%; 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 } .s4023C826 { width:10.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6AFFE928 { width:11.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB1E0658 { width:11.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA31D107D { width:13.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s119ECC38 { width:13.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC194862F { width:14.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s693ECFAD { width:20.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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. 29049/08 Ilya Anatolyevich BOGATYREV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   October 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, 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 application no. 8975/12, complaint based on the same facts was also communicated to the Government under Article 13 of the Convention. 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 Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. As to application no.   8975/12 they indicated that their declaration only related to the period of the applicant’s detention after 26 May 2011 and they further acknowledged that the authorities had violated the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention insofar as he had no effective remedy to complain about the conditions of his detention during the indicated period. 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 Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it 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”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) ([GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI)). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54-64, 12   November 2015). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list as regards the complaints related to the inadequate conditions of detention. The applicant in application no. 8975/12 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. In particular, he also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention prior to 26 May 2011. The Court has examined that application 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. 8975/12 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 in so far as they relate to specific periods of inadequate conditions of detention indicated therein, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to in the declarations; Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of application no. 8975/12 inadmissible, including the complaint about the conditions of the applicant’s detention before 26 May 2011, and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about that period of detention. Done in English and notified in writing on 3   November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     29049/08 19/03/2008 Ilya Anatolyevich BOGATYREV 05/08/1963       30/10/2015   7,325     8975/12 09/01/2012 Yevgeniy Romanovich POVARNITSYN 05/02/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 20/05/2016 12/08/2016 4,960     62997/13 23/09/2013 Serafim Anatolyevich BERTEL 12/02/1983       04/02/2016 09/08/2016 5,125     63358/13 17/09/2013 Kirill Sergeyevich KHODOROV 10/05/1988       04/02/2016 22/08/2016 9,000     9834/15 12/02/2015 Volodya Levonovich GRIGORYAN 20/09/1979 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk   04/02/2016   6,250   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.