CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 octobre 2018

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { 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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION           CASE OF BASMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 52595/09 )                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 October 2018         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Basmanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 2 September 2009. 2.     The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the   Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised complaints about the poor conditions of their detention and transport. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     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: “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.” 6.     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). 7.     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. 8.     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. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTON ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION AND TRANSPORT 10.     The applicants also complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of their detention in a remand facility and the conditions of their transport on a particular occasion. 11.     The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicants in respect of the conditions of their detention under Article 3 of the Convention, as well as the conditions of their transport. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention and transport during the relevant periods and in the facilities covered by the unilateral declarations. 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. 12.     The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases. 13.     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. 14.     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”. 15.     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). 16.     The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention and transport (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). 17.     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 unilateral declarations (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 18.     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 ). 19.     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). 20.     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 and transport during the periods and in the facilities covered by the unilateral declarations. III.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 21.     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.” 22.     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. 23.     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.     Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations covering the inadequate conditions of detention and transport and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;   2.     Decides to strike the application in the part covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention and declares the remainder of the application admissible.   3.     Holds that the application discloses a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;   4.     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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal   Specific defects Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded by the unilateral declarations of the Government (in euros) [2] 52595/09 02/09/2009 (3 applicants) Maksim Nikolayevich Basmanov 25/08/1978         Ivan Nikolayevich Kanev 04/01/1978         Aleksandr Petrovich Parfenyuk 03/02/1975 13/02/2009 to 30/10/2009 8 month(s) and 18 day(s)     13/02/2009 to 30/10/2009 8 month(s) and 18 day(s)     24/02/2009 to 30/10/2009 8 month(s) and 7 day(s)   Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic / Supreme Court of the Komi Republic         collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.         1,000 5,935 to Mr Basmanov     5,740 to Mr Kanev     5,610 to Mr Parfenyuk     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.