CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2019

.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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 DECISION Application no. 29253/17 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DEZHIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   March 2019 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 (see the appended table). 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, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law, covered by the Government’s declarations and listed in the appended table. The applicant in application no. 6315/18 also complained about conditions of his detention during another period, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration. The Court has examined the application 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, that complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application 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 well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table; Declares the remainder of application no. 6315/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.   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 acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     29253/17 17/01/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Dezhin 16/10/1982 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 29/09/2017 20/12/2017 11,500     30823/17 14/03/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Matveyev 09/07/1994 Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich Krasnodar Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 29/09/2017 20/12/2017 3,225     32490/17 20/03/2017 Aleksandr Ilyich Suslin 04/09/1956       29/09/2017 12/12/2017 12,250     33012/17 04/04/2017 Aleksandr Ivanovich Kolpakov 23/08/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 29/09/2017 20/12/2017 8,500     84216/17 10/11/2017 Vladimir Alekseyevich Kolchanov 25/03/1959       16/07/2018 01/10/2018 1,000     6315/18 12/01/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich Gavrilov 24/10/1981 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma   17/07/2018 05/09/2018 5,000     7053/18 01/03/2018 Ilkin Gasym ogly Gasymov 01/01/1976 Korobeynikov Grigoriy Anatolyevich St Petersburg   18/09/2018 26/11/2018 5,500     9800/18 07/02/2018 Sergey Olegovich Dergachev 14/09/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 11/12/2018 3,555     13282/18 01/03/2018 Kirill Aleksandrovich Khalepo 23/04/1991 Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 26/11/2018 5,250   16167/18 18/03/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich Nikulin 06/01/1982 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 22/11/2018 4,250   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.