CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 juin 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 47095/17 Aleksey Vladimirovich PEKAR against Russia and 21 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 June 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 respect of the complaints covered by the unilateral declarations. 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 the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as listed in the unilateral declarations of the Government. The applicant in application no. 15012/18 also complained about the conditions of his detention in facilities and during periods different from those covered by the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government in his case. 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 application no. 15012/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as listed in the unilateral declarations, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table); Declares the remainder of application no. 15012/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 July 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)   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) [i]     47095/17 11/12/2017 Aleksey Vladimirovich Pekar 13/01/1981 Biryukov Aleksey Sergeyevich Elektrostal Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 40 times transfer to trial court, pending, 4-6 hours, 0.2 m2   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Solnechnegorsk Town Court: numerous detention and trial hearings during which the applicant was kept in a metal cage   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport and containment in a metal cage during court hearings 17/09/2018 02/11/2018 8,300     64419/17 02/04/2018 Andrey Dmitriyevich Prokofyev 06/08/1976     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 29/04/2019 3,528     83048/17 17/11/2017 Valeriy Vladislavovich Manuylov 01/01/1959       17/09/2018 30/11/2018 1,385     12925/18 06/06/2018 Oleg Viktorovich Petukhov 23/01/1992       25/01/2019 26/03/2019 2,825     14680/18 06/03/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich Petrov 13/06/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 18/04/2019 3,190     15012/18 12/03/2018 Igor Olegovich Artamonov 22/10/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 27/11/2018 6,150     15144/18 23/05/2018 Vladimir Olegovich Logachev 26/06/1985     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 29/04/2019 1,365     16224/18 14/03/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich Nazarov 02/06/1979       24/01/2019 14/03/2019 12,500     18070/18 10/03/2018 Ivan Viktorovich Makarskiy 09/01/1989       19/02/2019 12/04/2019 10,000   18129/18 12/03/2018 Nikolay Nikolayevich Fomin 23/02/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 05/02/2019 04/04/2019 3,355   18416/18 26/03/2018 Chingiz Faridovich Zimnurov 25/07/1988       10/01/2019 14/03/2019 4,750   18660/18 15/06/2018 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Firsov 17/11/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 29/03/2019 9,225   19278/18 31/03/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich Tsarev 23/11/1979 Zvonkova Yelena Yuryevna St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van to take part in investigative actions or court hearings, sometimes in "glass" of 0.32 m², without ventilation, no light, dirty van, passive smoking, lack of toilet, overcrowding, no place for all persons during the period from 23/04/2015 to 23/10/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport and detention 09/01/2019 21/03/2019 13,500   21001/18 09/04/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich Medvedev 09/07/1977       10/01/2019 18/03/2019 2,260   22225/18 23/04/2018 Georgiy Aleksandrovich Kolvakh 10/09/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 30/10/2018 15/01/2019 11,550   22243/18 13/04/2018 Pavel Anatolyevich Sorokin 25/05/1982       30/10/2018 22/01/2019 1,895   23664/18 03/05/2018 Valeriy Nikolayevich Pavlov 18/10/1970     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 30/10/2018 21/01/2019 13,500   26748/18 18/05/2018 Shamil Gadzhidibirovich Aliyev 26/05/1988 Korobeynikov Grigoriy Anatolyevich St Petersburg   25/01/2019 15/03/2019 4,950   27504/18 27/04/2018 Aleksey Rostislavovich Bakhtin 02/07/1977 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 11/03/2019 26/04/2019 7,200   29566/18 05/06/2018 Nikolay Yuryevich Shevelev 09/07/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 11/03/2019 11/04/2019 4,285   30964/18 11/06/2018 Anton Dmitriyevich Zaslavskiy 12/06/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 25/01/2019 22/03/2019 2,095   31077/18 14/06/2018 Nikita Borisovich Myasnikov 20/02/1982     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 25/01/2019 18/03/2019 2,095   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.