CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sF96A92BE { width:45.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; 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 } .sDF4F8089 { width:3.64%; 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 } .s78CBAA31 { width:10.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76F90FAC { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB96D077B { width:10.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s40FC71B8 { width:23.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8D51436F { width:12.62%; 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 } .s6E000ED5 { width:15.14%; 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 } .s2CCA6CB0 { width:3.64%; 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 } .sE6E37A65 { width:10.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s64633DB7 { width:11.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4A1F110C { width:10.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8F18B4AC { width:23.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25AC1B0 { width:12.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3497DA89 { width:15.14%; 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. 785/12 Vitaliy Vladimirovich PASHKEVICH against Russia and 11 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September   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, 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 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 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 (see the appended table below for other complaints under well-established case-law). 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 were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 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, in particular, 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, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012). 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 in the part covered by the declarations (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 as regards the issues covered by the Government’s declarations (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 in the relevant parts 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 cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law as listed in the attached table below. The applicants in applications nos. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined these 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 applications nos. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 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 concern the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law as listed in the attached table below, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; 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 applications nos. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s 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) [1]     785/12 12/12/2011 Vitaliy Vladimirovich Pashkevich 29/12/1971     Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - two periods of detention: from initial detention in September 2010 till the conviction on 08/06/2011 and from quashing of the conviction on appeal on 07/09/2011 till the new court sentence dated 13/01/2012,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 16/01/2018   8,000     41478/15 12/08/2015 Vadim Aleksandrovich Gasenko 26/06/1977     Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 04/02/2015 to 24/03/2016,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decisions of 30/04/2015, 27/05/2015, 26/06/2015, 26/08/2015 and 15/12/2015 heard on 26/05/2015, 23/06/2015, 29/09/2015, 29/09/2015 and 09/02/2016, respectively 19/03/2018 04/05/2018 2,724     10223/17 14/03/2017 Vitaliy Vladimirovich Petrusevich 03/10/1979       12/10/2017   7,500     17269/17 15/09/2017 Sergey Vadimovich Aleksandrovich 17/03/1972       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018   3,528     34666/17 26/04/2017 Valentin Valeryevich Pshennikov 07/06/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018   2,460     56225/17 12/06/2017 Aleksey Valentinovich Lavrentyev 20/10/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018   3,528     62934/17 09/08/2017 Mikhail Vladimirovich Geyntse 20/11/1986     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Allegedly over 15 transits in the period from 15/12/2016 to 01/04/2017 from IVS to IZ-3 in Achinsk 03/04/2018 01/06/2018 3,000     65296/17 11/09/2017 Yuriy Aleksandrovich Kudryavtsev 22/03/1951     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018 17/05/2018 1,000     68830/17 01/09/2017 Anatoliy Anatolyevich Kolesnikov 15/01/1975 Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna Rostov-na-Donu Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 03/04/2018 25/05/2018 4,285   70127/17 22/08/2017 Zurab Anzorovich Gabuniya 21/05/1974       19/03/2018   5,175   70194/17 14/08/2017 Ruslan Shamil ogly Guliyev 15/08/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 19/03/2018   6,300   70846/17 13/09/2017 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Burlachenko 22/01/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 03/04/2018 28/05/2018 1,385   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.