CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 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 } .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 } .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 } .sD256B098 { width:3.3%; 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 } .s4242624C { width:8.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE2F62C5E { width:13%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s346C1124 { width:12.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5127BD4 { width:17.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11E252B4 { width:9%; 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 } .sF10CA44C { width:9.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBC1C16EE { width:26.26%; 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 } .s3B392C1A { width:3.3%; 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 } .sE76E8E7A { width:8.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s94264D1A { width:13%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9E5ABA13 { width:12.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59A50EAE { width:17.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6F4957FD { width:9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD4D262D2 { width:9.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25C7E9E0 { width:26.26%; 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 DECISION Application no. 11383/17 Aleksandr Viktorovich VETVITSKIY against Russia and 14 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   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, 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 Article 13 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 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 Article 13 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 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 (see, for example, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013). 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)). 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 that part (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 concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law insofar as they are covered by the unilateral declarations (see the appended table). The applicant in application no. 11383/17 also raised another complaint about the conditions of his detention during a period not referred to in the unilateral declaration of the Government. The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does 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 application no. 11383/17 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 and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), 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 application no. 11383/17 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 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 comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     11383/17 30/01/2017 Aleksandr Viktorovich Vetvitskiy 29/03/1984       22/01/2018 17/03/2018 7,250     20147/17 07/06/2017 Aleksey Vladimirovich Nikolayev 19/03/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 23/01/2018 09/03/2018 5,000     43228/17 23/05/2017 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Ustinenko 28/07/1978       23/01/2018 08/03/2018 5,000     61294/17 10/08/2017 Aleksey Vladimirovich Derezyak 13/02/1977 Korchuganova Natalya Vladimirovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 22/01/2018 - 5,000     61664/17 11/08/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Drachuk 03/03/1970 Butrimenko Marianna Dmitriyevna Volgograd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 22/01/2018 09/03/2018 5,000     80305/17 11/11/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Leontyev 03/08/1972       22/05/2018 25/09/2018 4,500     82495/17 10/11/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich Semenin 04/09/1977       22/05/2018 16/07/2018 5,500     4242/18 20/12/2017 Maksim Vladimirovich Vitenko 29/07/1988       23/07/2018 18/09/2018 4,500     4769/18 15/12/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Volkov 07/11/1976       23/07/2018 - 4,500   6804/18 23/01/2018 Dzheykhun Iskanderovich Babayev 29/04/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 23/07/2018 01/10/2018 4,500   8010/18 10/01/2018 Vadim Borisovich Zenkov 26/03/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2018 - 4,500   11554/18 19/02/2018 Maksim Sagitovich Akhmedeyev 03/05/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 09/10/2018 03/12/2018 4,500   12038/18 19/02/2018 Igor Mikhaylovich Nesterov 04/04/1965       09/10/2018 05/12/2018 4,500   13629/18 10/03/2018 Anton Nikolayevich Veselyev 16/09/1985       04/10/2018 20/11/2018 4,500   18148/18 31/03/2018 Andrey Ivanovich Mokeyev 11/08/1967       31/10/2018 02/01/2019 4,500   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.