CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 avril 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 } .s946186CB { height:1.5pt } .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 } .sF3EAAF69 { height:104.5pt } .s24215D7A { height:24.75pt } .s4600776 { height:53.3pt } .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. 43256/15 Daniil Mikhaylovich MALEYEV against Russia and 12 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   April 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. 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 the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 May 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]     43256/15 24/08/2015 Daniil Mikhaylovich Maleyev 17/11/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 11/06/2018 7,000     63008/16 26/10/2016 Svetlana Yakovlevna Sava 26/12/1958 Markova Tatyana Yuryevna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 11/05/2017 02/08/2017 4,220     66104/16 07/11/2016 Yevgeniy Yuryevich Makarov 30/11/1980 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - 12/05/2016- verdict; 28/05/2016 Appeal,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 28/05/2015-29/06/2016, van, transit cell, 0.5 m2, overcrowding, traumatic transportation, no warm meals, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 11/05/2017 24/07/2017 7,375     67920/16 09/11/2016 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Ryzhkov 24/05/1983 Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 11/05/2017 28/07/2017 7,500     75383/16 18/01/2017 Mikhail Valentinovich Mitrofanov 13/06/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2017 30/10/2017 1,365     2938/17 14/01/2017 Sergey Pavlovich Toporkov 12/04/1982     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2017 08/12/2017 9,500     15436/17 08/02/2017 Tatyana Aleksandrovna Moiseyeva 15/01/1981 Tretyak Tatyana Aleksandrovna Gelendzhik Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - metal cage in courtroom during the hearings in 2015-2016.,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 44 occasions of transport in a van between IVS and the court to participate in 22 court hearings between 30/05/2015 and 12/08/2016.,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2017 31/10/2017 7,500     16010/17 08/02/2017 Aleksey Yuryevich Timofeyev 28/02/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2017 13/11/2017 7,000     33060/17 12/10/2017 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Sankevich 14/01/1983       15/05/2018 10/07/2018 2,460   46590/17 07/06/2017 Yevgeniy Alekseyevich Razumov 05/02/1993     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 13/04/2018 4,285   73713/17 30/09/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Surkov 03/02/1977 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 15/05/2018 13/07/2018 12,825   75887/17 20/09/2017 Kirill Vladimirovich Dadayev 28/09/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 15/05/2018 25/09/2018 3,190   76483/17 23/10/2017 Oleg Yevgenyevich Dudkin 05/04/1971     Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 24/06/2016 - 25/08/2017 15/05/2018 26/06/2018 7,400   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.