CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s7D991D0E { width:4.46%; 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 } .sC2947244 { width:9.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEF24FD1 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBE1D6212 { width:10.18%; 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 } .sEF2C0F73 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC677650A { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; 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 } .s3D28DECB { width:19.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s56B95803 { width:4.46%; 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 } .sF1A05B5 { width:9.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA35C7 { width:15.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s80759B57 { width:10.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s92370B00 { width:12.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7FF1B79C { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s679F679C { width:19.96%; 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         CASE OF ZAYTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 57476/09 and 9 others - see appended list )                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   12 October 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Zaytsev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and about the conditions of their detention. Two applicants in applications nos. 35673/14 and 48873/14 also argued that they had not had an effective domestic remedy to complain about inadequate conditions of their detention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article   5   §   3 “3.     Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 7.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 8.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     The applicants also complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 12.     The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicants’ complaints under Article 3. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. 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 judgment. In the event of failure to pay the amounts within the abovementioned 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 payments will constitute the final resolution of the cases insofar as they concerned the complaint about the poor conditions of detention. 13.     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 applications”. 14.     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)). 15.     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). 16.     Noting the admission contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications insofar as they concerned the applicants’ complaint about the poor conditions of their detention (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 17.     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 this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine). 18.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications in this part 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). 19.     Accordingly, in so far as the complaints under Article 3 about the conditions of the applicants’ detention are concerned, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION 20.     The applicants in applications nos. 35673/14 and 48873/14 also argued under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy to complain about the poor conditions of detention. 21.     The Government did not comment, having only submitted the unilateral declarations which dealt exclusively with the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 (see paragraph 12 above). 22.     In Ananyev and Others case (cited above, § 119), the Court has already found that the Russian legal system did not provide an effective remedy that could be used to prevent the alleged violation or its continuation and provide applicants with adequate and sufficient redress in connection with a complaint about inadequate conditions of detention. The Government presented no arguments or evidence to enable the Court to reach a different conclusion in the cases at hand. In the light of the Government’s acknowledgement in respect of the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of the Convention pertaining to the conditions of their detention (see paragraph 12 above), thus confirming its “arguable” nature, the Court concludes that the complaint under Article 13 is admissible. It further finds that the two applicants had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal in respect of their complaint concerning the conditions of detention. 23.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the two applicants (cases nos. 35673/14 and 48873/14). V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 25.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no.     55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 26.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Decides , having regard to the terms of the Government’s declarations, and the arrangement for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as they concern the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention;   3.     Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos. 35673/14 and 48873/14 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the inadequate conditions of detention, admissible;   4.     Holds that there has been a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   5.     Holds that there has been a breach of Article   13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in respect of the applicants in applications nos.   35673/14 and 48873/14;   6.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   7.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Period of detention Length of detention Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded under unilateral declaration submitted by the Government in respect of the complaints about the conditions of detention (in euros) [2]     57476/09 01/10/2009 Vladimir Vladimirovich Zaytsev 19/08/1966     28/01/2009 to 04/12/2009 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)   1,000 10,625     761/10 26/11/2009 Isroil Ismoilovich Vokhidov 20/05/1965     24/06/2008 to 20/12/2010 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s) 2,600 18,625     3459/10 18/11/2009 Aleksandr Alekseyevich Zharkov 04/10/1981     30/06/2008 to 09/03/2010 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 10 day(s) 1,900 8,000     54773/10 23/08/2010 Yuriy Vitalyevich Berezhnoy 10/06/1978     08/10/2009 to 26/11/2010 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1,200 6,000     11420/12 30/01/2012 Yevgeniy Petrovich Stepanov 30/06/1974     10/10/2010 to 03/06/2014 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s) 3,800 11,250     36421/12 14/05/2012 Vladimir Yuryevich Artamonov 02/03/1972 Lapinskiy Vladislav Vadimovich St Petersburg 20/04/2010 to 12/12/2013 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 23 day(s) 3,800 12,875     38110/12 21/05/2012 Igor Yuryevich Boldinov 09/07/1984     10/06/2008 to 18/04/2012 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 9 day(s) 4,100 17,875     74969/13 04/11/2013 Vladimir Yuryevich Maslov 02/08/1984 Ryabinin Denis Aleksandrovich Khabarovsk 19/08/2010 to 05/12/2011     28/06/2012 to 27/09/2012   15/01/2013 to 13/05/2013   1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s)   3 month(s)     3 month(s) and 29 day(s)   2,100 11,000     35673/14 08/05/2014 Roman Daniilovich Stolbov 11/10/1968 Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan 01/02/2013 to 13/11/2013 9 month(s) and 13 day(s)   1,000 4,675   48873/14 20/11/2014 Andrey Olegovich Malyugin 25/05/1984     29/08/2011 to 17/03/2016 4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 18 day(s)   4,700 12,250     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.