CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juillet 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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .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. 61464/15 Nikita Nikolayevich SOKOLOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5   July   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, 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 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. 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) 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]     61464/15 03/12/2015 Nikita Nikolayevich Sokolov 15/05/1977 Semenov Maksim Vladimirovich St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport and detention in convoy cells on dates of hearings, starting from the date of the arrest and throughout the criminal proceedings;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention of the applicant during court hearings in a metal cage throughout the criminal proceedings against him both before the Smolnichkiy District Court in St Petersburg and Oktyabrskiy District Court;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 01/07/2015, 08/07/2015 and 30/09/2015 examined on 08/09/2015, 16/09/2015 and 25/11/2015, respectively; detention order of 30/12/2015 upheld on appeal on 03/02/2016; detention order of 04/02/2016 examined on appeal on 01/03/2016; detention order of 03/03/2016 examined on 12/04/2016;   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention without sufficient reasoning for a long period of time on a non-violent charge and without due consideration of alternative measures of restraint. 16/01/2018 23/03/2018 8,000     55985/16 13/09/2016 Anatoliy Sergeyevich Sinyavin 05/07/1993 Budkevich Tatyana Georgiyevna Pervouralsk   01/02/2018 04/04/2018 4,285     17243/17 30/05/2017 Viktor Vasilyevich Andreyev 23/02/1990     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 01/02/2018 09/04/2018 3,555     28671/17 18/04/2017 Marlen Gennadyevich Abroliani 24/11/1979 Magomedova Roza Saidovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention. Lengthy pre-trial detention (between 08/10/2015 and 27/04/2017);   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Lengthy review of pre-trial detention order issued on 26/10/2016 (49 days). 16/01/2018 12/03/2018 7,500     33080/17 05/06/2017 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Sidorov 08/02/1993       13/02/2018 09/04/2018 5,500     42095/17 24/05/2017 Vyacheslav Valentinovich Finogenov 25/04/1968 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/01/2018 20/04/2018 8,500     42231/17 24/05/2017 Salumatsho Tolibovich Khushunov 09/07/1983       16/01/2018 08/03/2018 11,500     42417/17 28/07/2017 Yevgeniy Stanislavovich Chikishev 13/08/1988       01/02/2018 15/03/2018 2,460     45986/17 13/06/2017 Aleksey Aleksandrovich Zakamaldin 08/08/1988       16/01/2018 04/04/2018 6,000   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.