CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 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 } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s1154C1B5 { width:3.44%; 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 } .s2E1B1DF4 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF3D9A16F { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3284CE30 { width:19.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC77DD2C2 { width:9.94%; 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 } .sFDDEAFA3 { width:11.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D1B163B { width:18.64%; 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 } .s14C006F6 { height:8.95pt } .s6DE7982A { width:3.44%; 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 } .sC4BD41D7 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD45610E2 { width:24.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s22BB0F37 { width:19.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC97B797 { width:9.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA31E0735 { width:11.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s524D85B2 { width:18.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95D84CD6 { height:16pt } .s7980263B { height:21.6pt } .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. 8881/18 Artem Ivanovich BURMISTROV against Russia and 11 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   August 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, 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 during transport 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 during transport. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention (see the appended table). 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 Government offered a single unilateral declaration in respect of the two applications from Mr Pandi, applications nos. 29711/18 and 33099/18, acknowledging a violation of both Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the episodes of transport described in those applications and offering 1,000   euros in total. The amounts indicated by the Government in the unilateral declarations, as listed in the appended table, 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 during transport as well as the other complaints under the well-established case ‑ law, as listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 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 insofar as covered by the Government’s 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 during transport and the other complaints under the well-established case ‑ law, as set out in the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no. 8881/18 also complained about other instances of transport 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 application no. 8881/18 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 relating to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the 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 application no. 8881/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 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 during transport)   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) [i]     8881/18 11/01/2018 Artem Ivanovich Burmistrov 17/06/1989   26/09/2018 - 1,300     12220/18 07/02/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich Chebotarev 26/11/1989 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 19/09/2018 09/11/2018 1,000     17500/18 26/03/2018 Oleg Vladimirovich Leshchev 13/06/1960 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 09/10/2018 - 1,000     17696/18 21/03/2018 Nikolay Viktorovich Yemelin 13/04/1984   09/10/2018 26/11/2018 1,000     17750/18 22/03/2018 Igor Nikolayevich Ronzhin 21/06/1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 09/10/2018 27/11/2018 1,000     18184/18 18/03/2018 Anonymat Azat Zaydyatovich Shaydullov 25/11/1967 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 16/10/2018 10/01/2019 1,000     21261/18 12/04/2018 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zabrodtskiy 03/06/1980 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 16/10/2018 21/01/2019 1,000     23362/18 24/04/2018 Andrey Andreyevich Poturvay 08/09/1984   16/10/2018 22/01/2019 1,000     24625/18 04/05/2018 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Smirnov 25/05/1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 16/10/2018 22/01/2019 1,000   29711/18 21/05/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Pandi 23/07/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 - 1,000, covering both application no.   29711/18 and no. 33099/18   33099/18 28/06/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Pandi 23/07/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 - See the award under application no.   29711/18 above   31556/18 13/06/2018 Rovlan Shakhzada-ogly Farzaliyev 13/02/1984 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 29/01/2019 30/04/2019 1,000   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.