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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s85D7B88B { width:4.82%; 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 } .s5A311C5D { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3673A941 { width:13.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE232948B { width:14.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8AC80224 { width:15.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFBB71A2E { width:14.14%; 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 } .s3D156BE3 { width:12.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCB3BF08F { width:14.8%; 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 } .sB5980E5B { width:4.82%; 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 } .s6B7CF416 { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5261FBCA { width:13.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s124F9AE2 { width:14.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D7E242A { width:15.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2802653D { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F3D627 { width:12.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s296A656D { width:14.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 54092/14 Maksim Valeryevich SUBBOTIN against Russia and 13 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, 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 further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government 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 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 to the other complaints under the well-established case-law as indicated in the appended table, and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012; and Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 as regards the complaints indicated above (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 in respect of the complaints covered by the unilateral 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 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 covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see the appended table). The applicants in applications nos. 54092/14 and 54730/17 also complained about the conditions of detention during other periods, not covered by the Government’s declarations. The Court has examined these applications 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. 54092/14 and 54730/17 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 the well-established case-law listed in the table appended, 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. 54092/14 and 54730/17 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 comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     54092/14 28/07/2014 Maksim Valeryevich Subbotin 22/10/1980     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport ,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - end date on 20/05/2014,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 12/09/2016 23/11/2016 10,000     60403/16 01/04/2017 Elbrus Akifovich Aliyev 22/04/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 12/10/2017   7,125     17223/17 29/08/2017 Mikhail Yuryevich Kornilov 16/08/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 15/05/2018   3,920     20394/17 22/02/2017 Igor Yevgenyevich Pukhachev 07/06/1980 Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna Kazan Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention ,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 13/02/2018   2,000     28259/17 26/06/2017 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Krivko 19/12/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018   8,000     40374/17 29/01/2018 Vladislav Yuryevich Ignatenko 10/04/1991       18/09/2018 27/11/2018 7,750     51585/17 02/10/2017 Denis Aleksandrovich Matveyev 20/07/1986       25/05/2018   3,920     54730/17 12/07/2017 Vladimir Vladimirovich Durnitsyn 10/10/1993       16/01/2018   1,000     78531/17 31/10/2017 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich Popov 13/11/1984 Pekhteleva Viktoriya Viktorovna Moscow   25/05/2018 12/07/2018 5,000   79968/17 09/11/2017 Sergey Olegovich Zavyalov 06/02/1980       15/05/2018 12/07/2018 3,555   83324/17 28/11/2017 Maksim Aleksandrovich Markin 24/07/1981     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and of transport   15/05/2018 25/06/2018 4,785   4084/18 21/12/2017 Andrey Nikolayevich Popich 27/12/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 18/09/2018   7,000   4908/18 31/12/2017 Artur Rinatovich Chaldayev 06/08/1986 Dubrovskikh Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Saransk   17/07/2018 27/09/2018 1,365   9355/18 13/12/2017 Andery Sergeyevich Ivanov 12/02/1982     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 18/09/2018   6,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.