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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 16 July 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Application no. 54198/17 Aleksey Leonidovich TSIVILEV against Russia and 16 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 Article 13 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 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 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, and the other complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see the attached table). The applicants in applications nos. 54198/17 and 22886/18 also complained about additional periods of detention during which they allegedly had been in poor conditions. The Court has examined the applications 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. 54198/17 and 22886/18 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 during the periods covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the attached table); Declares the remainder of applications nos. 54198/17 and 22886/18 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]     54198/17 15/09/2017 Aleksey Leonidovich Tsivilev 16/06/1975         30/10/2018 10/05/2019 4,500     2070/18 26/12/2017 Dmitriy Nikolayevich Naumov 28/01/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 14/09/2018 23/03/2019 4,500     10855/18 12/02/2018 Andrey Vladimirovich Litvintsev 28/01/1971       04/10/2018 08/01/2019 4,500     12154/18 24/02/2018 Rinat Ramayevich Abdeyev 08/08/1987     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 23/11/2018 4,500     22782/18 27/04/2018 Maksim Igorevich Sakmenov 27/02/1997 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500     22807/18 03/05/2018 Mikhail Sergeyevich Galaktionov 30/10/1989 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500     22811/18 03/05/2018 Roman Viktorovich Denev 15/08/1975 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500     22813/18 03/05/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Zverev 06/08/1978 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500     22886/18 27/04/2018 Anatoliy Gennadyevich Batygin 27/02/1982 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   22887/18 27/04/2018 Andrey Anatolyevich Kurtyshev 29/03/1970 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   23192/18 16/04/2018 Konstantin Vitalyevich Kalmykov 15/04/1972     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 17/01/2019 23/04/2019 4,500   23627/18 27/04/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich Sharov 23/06/1991 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   24437/18 10/04/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Borisyuk 07/02/1974 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   24576/18 14/05/2018 Vladimir Leonovich Mikhay 23/09/1974 [1] Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   24582/18 14/05/2018 Sergey Anatolyevich Koshelev 15/08/1971 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 17/12/2018 4,500   26581/18 08/05/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich Udintsev 12/01/1971         25/01/2019 14/03/2019 5,250   26752/18 28/05/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich Vedernikov 09/12/1988       29/01/2019 24/04/2019 4,500   [1] Rectified on 16 July 2019: the text was “Vladimir Leonidovich Mikhay 23/09/1984” [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.