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 } .s5CBB5377 { width:24.45pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9CF7E27B { width:131.86pt; 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 } .sE324E089 { height:74.85pt } .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. 41917/06 Batyr Dzhorakulovich ROZYYEV against Russia and 19 other applications (see list appended)   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 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 declarations 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 these parts 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 listed in the appended table and covered by the Government’s declarations. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence and having regard to the fact that the friendly settlement agreements have covered the main legal questions raised in the present applications, 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 or, as concerns application no. 41917/06, there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.   Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014 with further references), It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention and, for application no.   41917/06, left without further examination. 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 well-established case-law listed in the appended table and covered by the friendly settlement; Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in application no. 41917/06 and declares the remainder of the remaining applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Deputy Section 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]     41917/06 31/07/2006 Batyr Dzhorakulovich Rozyyev 22/09/1970 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - detention in a correctional colony in the Vladimir Region between 12/12/2006 and 16/10/2009,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention ,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention 13/10/2015 26/02/2016 13,675     54786/16 06/09/2016 Vladimir Rudolfovich Gorskiy 02/05/1983       11/05/2017 19/09/2017 4,675     21658/17 07/03/2017 Sergey Ivanovich Tkachenko 18/12/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   12/10/2017 05/12/2017 7,000     32429/17 21/06/2017 Aleksey Nikolayevich Tsvetkov 25/03/1975     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 04/02/2017 van, overcrowding, inadequate temperature   16/01/2018 09/03/2018 5,750     34809/17 14/04/2017 Yuriy Vladimirovich Rakh 06/09/1982 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 12/10/2017 13/12/2017 9,750     34897/17 25/04/2017 Mubariz Orudzh Ogly Mamedov 19/01/1972       12/10/2017 07/12/2017 4,090     53384/17 18/07/2017 Eldar Suyundikovich Esbolganov 10/06/1994 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 01/03/2018 5,000     53739/17 15/07/2017 Samit Sayfiyevich Tashmatov 01/03/1961 Yezhov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Velikiy Novgorod 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 - Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg until 21/03/2017 (convicted). 16/01/2018 02/03/2018 9,000     53763/17 06/07/2017 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shalamov 09/12/1976 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 12/02/2018 1,000   56244/17 03/08/2017 Nuritdin Zayirovich Kurbanov 15/10/1974 Magomedova Roza Saidovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018 09/05/2018 2,214   58908/17 10/09/2017 Dmitryy Igorevich Smokvin 23/08/1989 Magomedova Roza Saidovna Moscow Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 02/03/2017. Appeal lodged on 04/03/2017. Appeal hearing on 27/03/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018 09/05/2018 5,850   68016/17 30/08/2017 Mikhail Alekseyevich Martynov 13/09/1988 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention following the quashing of the trial judgment by the appeal court on 05/12/2014 and authorisation of detention on remand. Release on 21/03/2017 20/03/2018 01/06/2018 10,000   73461/17 29/09/2017 Ilya Alekseyevich Yegorov 18/12/1986 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018 01/06/2018 12,825   74178/17 29/09/2017 Islam Rusanbekovich Albogachiyev 22/11/1990 Nevzorov Dmitriy Gennadyevich St Petersburg Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the 34 hearings in total he was put in the metal cage. Verdict of the Smolensk Regional Court, 29/03/2017. 15/05/2018 13/07/2018 10,000   78882/17 31/10/2017 Andrey Yuryevich Glukhov 22/10/1978       15/05/2018 12/07/2018 2,095   82756/17 20/11/2017 Vladimir Borisovich Dereberya 09/11/1973 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to examine "speedily" the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 16/07/2018 19/09/2018 5,500   83335/17 12/11/2017 Konstantin Yuryevich Gavrilov 26/02/1994 Korobeynikov Grigoriy Anatolyevich St Petersburg   15/05/2018 04/07/2018 11,477   2229/18 11/12/2017 Sergey Mikhaylovich Vidyakin 11/03/1982     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 18/09/2018 2,600   3742/18 23/12/2017 Pavel Vladimirovich Zykov 03/04/1983 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-na-Donu   16/07/2018 17/09/2018 2,460   4536/18 21/12/2017 Roman Viktorovich Firsov 17/06/1983       16/07/2018 04/09/2018 7,380   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.