CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sD1EBC398 { width:3.52%; 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 } .sC057C172 { width:10.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3F87E485 { width:16.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63A66DF9 { width:25.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCBE34B68 { width:9.3%; 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 } .sA30DBE26 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s88D0101C { width:13.38%; 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 } .s7DF3B3E2 { width:3.52%; 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 } .s49404635 { width:10.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5EB734CE { width:16.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s78B2D8A { width:25.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4A8751CA { width:9.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s61127307 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C5B19B2 { width:13.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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. 805/17 Vladislav Vladimirovich ROMANOV against Russia and 11 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   October 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 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 (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 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 (see, for example, 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 (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 (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 covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law mentioned therein (see the appended table). The applicants in applications nos. 33954/17 and 64414/17 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined those 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, they 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. 33954/17 and 64414/17 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, insofar as covered by the declarations, 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 applications nos. 33954/17 and 64414/17 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 November 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 comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     805/17 13/01/2017 Vladislav Vladimirovich Romanov 14/12/1959 Viktorova Natalya Aleksandrovna Dzerzhinsk Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 14/07/2017 22/09/2017 1,500     16765/17 13/02/2017 Aleksandr Igorevich Belchenkov 15/06/1992 Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 17/10/2017 22/11/2017 1,000     33954/17 10/04/2017 Safarmurod Saidmurodovich Makhmudov 14/09/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 02/01/2018 04/05/2018 7,000     64414/17 27/03/2018 Kirill Aleksandrovich Solodukhin 22/07/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 04/10/2018 27/11/2018 1,365     9128/18 22/05/2018 Erik Iskoyevich Mirzoyan 02/02/1992 Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant from the detention facility to courthouse or to take part in investigative actions in the period from 18/12/2017 to 25/01/2018; overcrowded transit cells, transport by van; no safety belts; on occasions no seats; the applicant had to stand during transport. 16/01/2019 25/03/2019 12,000     9290/18 02/04/2018 Pavel Sergeyevich Selivanov 14/10/1978         16/10/2018 12/02/2019 1,365     9560/18 25/01/2018 Sergey Alekseyevich Shcheglov 28/03/1976     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transport on 11/08/2017 and 21/08/2017. 14/09/2018 31/10/2018 2,000     14653/18 05/02/2018 Dmitriy Olegovich Los 12/07/1990     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 09/01/2019 21/03/2019 12,450     16357/18 13/04/2018 Yuriy Ivanovich Titov 08/08/1970     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/10/2018 - 1,365   22822/18 25/04/2018 Aleksandr Vitalyevich Zavorokhin 08/04/1974     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 30/10/2018 09/01/2019 2,260   28563/18 30/05/2018 Denis Nikolayevich Abramov 21/08/1981 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 09/01/2019 21/03/2019 2,000   29872/18 02/06/2018 Sergey Yuryevich Mironov 20/11/1989 Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 25/01/2019 23/03/2019 3,500   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.