CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC845BFF7 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75B8D6BE { width:182.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .sF7147D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 8470/15 Sergey Nikolayevich BARANOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting 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, other complaints raised by the applicants under well-established case-law were also communicated under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see appended table). The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In applications where the applicants also raised other complaints under well-established case-law (see appended table), they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 13 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations, as well as the other complaints raised by the applicants under well-established case-law. The applicant in application no. 17708/17 also complained about the conditions of his detention in another detention facility (facility no. IZ-47/4) not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration in his case. The Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10   January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see   Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands , no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds. In application no. 17708/17, the Government contended that the applicant had been afforded adequate personal space and had an individual sleeping place in detention facility no. IZ-47/4. Moreover, he had been allowed daily outdoor exercise and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by the remand prison governor and excerpts from remand prison’s population registers accounting for the applicant’s detention. The Court is satisfied that the excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the periods under the examination and which showed the actual number of inmates present in the cells on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the remand prison was not overcrowded. Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties in its entirety, the Court gives credence to the primary documents produced by the Government and rejects the applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility no IZ-47/4, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that the complaints about the conditions of detention as described in application no. 17708/17 in respect of facility no. IZ-47/4 are manifestly ill-founded. It follows that this part of application no. 17708/17 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as specified in the Government’s unilateral declarations, and the other complaints under well-established case-law (see appended table); Declares the remainder of application no. 17708/17 inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 3 May 2018. Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting 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 acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     8470/15 27/01/2015 Sergey Nikolayevich Baranov 27/11/1954     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport. 12/09/2016 13/12/2016 6,000     47291/15 31/10/2016 Sergey Vladimirovich Turov 02/04/1984 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in a van between IZ-1 St Petersburg and courthouses from 22/07/2015 to 30/05/2016;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport. 27/10/2017 05/01/2018 7,000     67356/16 28/10/2016 Artem Aleksandrovich Koryunov 11/01/1990 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 29/05/2017 18/08/2017 6,750     11490/17 18/04/2017 Kirill Gennadyevich Dulevskiy 02/04/1992       27/10/2017 08/01/2018 1,365     17708/17 26/02/2017 Aleksandr Pavlovich Burovtsev 09/01/1992 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.   15/09/2017 05/01/2018 3,190     35864/17 02/05/2017 Roman Takhirovich Khusnutdinov 02/10/1973 Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna Rostov-na-Donu Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 26/10/2017 14/12/2017 7,250     37181/17 28/04/2017 Vitaliy Yuryevich Titov 11/10/1986       27/10/2017 18/12/2017 10,000   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.