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 } .s761D06F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s95C3B84E { width:4.78%; 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 } .s56C85B5A { width:10.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s105C5724 { width:16.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2B283C67 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s29C8AD35 { width:12.58%; 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 } .s2F010EF { width:21.56%; 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 } .s9DFE1DA7 { width:4.78%; 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 } .s429CD60F { width:10.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4FC2C2A5 { width:16.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAC38887 { width:21.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA3CA3A3 { width:12.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s865DEC7C { width:21.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 8 July 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Application no. 69506/17 Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich TIMOFEYEV against Russia and 10 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 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. 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 other complaints under the well-established case-law as listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22   May 2012, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 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 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 these parts (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, insofar as they were addressed in the unilateral declarations, and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table). The applicants in applications nos. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court has examined these complaints 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. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 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, concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the 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 applications nos. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 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 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]     69506/17 13/11/2017 Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Timofeyev 11/09/1988 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 - 5,750     6925/18 30/11/2017 Vladimir Aleksandrovich Rashchupkin 06/01/1978   04/10/2018 07/02/2019 9,000     8453/18 08/12/2017 Artush Garnikovich Sianosyan 18/06/1986 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 - 9,500     9402/18 15/01/2018 Ruslan Lenurovich Nikitenko 20/08/1997   04/10/2018 - 1,360     9444/18 07/02/2018 Aleksey Stanislavovich Bondarchuk 31/03/1988   04/10/2018 - 6,750     13647/18 28/02/2018 Anton Andreyevich Gusev 15/03/1986   04/10/2018 30/11/2018 6,000     14092/18 04/12/2017 Oleg Romanovich Gaydukov 04/11/1990 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 - 4,500     15696/18 11/01/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Petrovets 02/05/1978   04/10/2018 13/12/2018 4,500     17766/18 23/03/2018 Maksim Viktorovich Lysenko 22/04/1979 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 28/11/2018 8,250   17982/18 07/03/2018 Dato Amiranovich Zalamize 30/06/1978 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 - 5,000   19361/18 05/04/2018 Dilmurod Nazmiddovich Nuritdinov [1] 24/11/1989 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - ,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - from IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg to IK-21 in the Chelyabinsk Region from 15/10/2017 to 13/11/2017 (overcrowding, restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, inadequate bedding and bed linen, inadequate hygienic facilities) 02/10/2018 18/03/2019 2,000   [1] Rectified on 8 July 2019: the text was “Dilmurod Nazhmiddovich Nerutdinov” [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.