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 } .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 } .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 } .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. 79086/17 Aleksey Vladimirovich KISELEV against Russia and 13 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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   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]     79086/17 31/10/2017 Aleksey Vladimirovich Kiselev 28/09/1979       22/05/2018 24/08/2018 1,000     81215/17 15/11/2017 Yevgeniy Igorevich Skosarev 09/03/1987       22/05/2018 23/06/2018 1,000     12928/18 17/04/2018 Andrey Vasilyevich Yegorov 11/07/1974     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 16/10/2018 29/01/2019 1,000     17365/18 29/03/2018 Valeriy Valeryevich Demyanenko 30/08/1973     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 09/10/2018 26/11/2018 1,000     17690/18 28/03/2018 Aleksandr Stoyanov Dimitrov 20/12/1975     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 09/10/2018 29/11/2018 1,000     19618/18 12/04/2018 Ivan Nikolayevich Mansurov 07/05/1991 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 16/10/2018 08/01/2019 1,000     21668/18 27/04/2018 Oleg Olegovich Knyazev 06/02/1991 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-na-Donu   16/10/2018 08/01/2019 1,000     23372/18 02/05/2018 Eduard Olegovich Murzanov 18/11/1982     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     27585/18 13/06/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich Novik 12/01/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 14/03/2019 1,000   29389/18 23/05/2018 Sergey Vasilyevich Karmanov 07/07/1992     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 21/03/2019 1,000   29464/18 20/02/2018 Umedzhon Muminovich Makhkamov 19/01/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 08/04/2019 1,000   29499/18 29/05/2018 Ivan Andreyevich Zamotin 25/01/1985       22/01/2019 18/03/2019 1,000   29778/18 04/06/2018 Roman Sergeyevich Vorobyev 30/04/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 22/01/2019 03/04/2019 1,000   32542/18 26/06/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich Smetanin 19/11/1991 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport 05/02/2019 02/04/2019 1,000   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.