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 } .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 } .s28F5597F { margin-top:18pt; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 44255/17 Petr Alekseyevich MATVIYENKO against Russia and 13 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, 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 further requested the Court to strike out the applications. 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. 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. 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 16 May 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   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]     44255/17 10/01/2018 Petr Alekseyevich Matviyenko 02/01/1995 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 18/09/2018 7,000     64678/17 04/12/2017 Maksim Valeryevich Pronin 24/11/1975 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 25/09/2018 5,250     69109/17 21/11/2017 Pavel Aleksandrovich Yefimenko 24/09/1990 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 04/10/2018 7,000     6939/18 13/03/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Saburov 14/06/1987 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 04/02/2019 1,730     9057/18 19/03/2018 Eduard Andreyevich Bobarykin 22/03/1989   02/10/2018 21/01/2019 3,920     9081/18 29/03/2018 Aleksey Viktorovich Ilyasov 16/07/1990 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 09/01/2019 8,750     11153/18 10/02/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Larshin 26/07/1985   04/10/2018 13/12/2018 11,500     13803/18 04/02/2018 Denis Aleksandrovich Sharkov 13/04/1992 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 05/12/2018 4,750     19330/18 03/04/2018 Maksim Pavlovich Yefimov 28/04/1991 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 11/12/2018 3,555   19441/18 30/03/2018 Aleksandr Fakhrad-zade Semenchenko 08/06/1994 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 03/01/2019 2,460   19780/18 09/04/2018 Yegor Dmitriyevich Reginya 20/11/1986 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in overcrowded van to take part in investigative actions or court hearings in the period between 11/05/2017 and 28/11/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport between 11/05/2017 and 28/11/2017 02/10/2018 26/11/2018 4,920   19789/18 09/04/2018 Shokhin Shakhriyerovich Murodov 29/05/1980 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by overcrowded van to take part in investigative actions or court hearings in the period between 11/05/2017 and 28/11/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport between 11/05/2017 and 28/11/2017 02/10/2018 28/11/2018 4,920   19795/18 09/04/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich Vlasov 18/01/1991 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by overcrowded van to taken part in investigative actions or court hearings in the period between 06/10/2016 and 16/11/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport between 06/10/2016 and 16/11/2017 02/10/2018 28/11/2018 6,750   20856/18 16/04/2018 Artem Dmitriyevich Ponomarev 13/02/1986   02/10/2018 06/12/2018 1,730   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.