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 } .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 } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA90BDD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sC6AB5D7A { height:26.75pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 20044/17 Aleksandr Andreyevich LUKOYANOV against Russia and 19 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, 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 during the periods covered by the declarations. 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 this part 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 insofar as covered by the Government’s declarations, as well as other the complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the same declarations (see appended table). The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 the applications 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 concern the complaints about the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law, insofar as covered by the declarations (see appended table); Declares the remainder of the applications 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 acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [i]     20044/17 25/02/2017 Aleksandr Andreyevich Lukoyanov 06/07/1990     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 17/10/2017 27/11/2017 6,750     20227/17 28/02/2017 Viktor Viktorovich Goryunov 01/10/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 17/10/2017 11/12/2017 5,250     27376/17 23/05/2017 Nikita Viktorovich Tyutyunik 26/01/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 20/04/2018 3,190     34037/17 23/03/2017 Vitaliy Timofeyevich Pushkarev 23/03/1989       02/01/2018 07/03/2018 7,750     34353/17 21/04/2017 Andrey Vladimirovich Manukhin 08/02/1984       02/01/2018 02/03/2018 4,285     34914/17 29/04/2017 Fatima Kazbekovna Nayfonova 15/01/1979 Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna Moskow Art. 13 lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of a speedy examination of the detention orders of 16/11/2016 and 16/02/2017,     Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was arrested on 20/05/2015 and detained on remand on 21/05/2015; the last detention order of 05/04/2017 extended her detention up to 24 months and 20 days. 16/01/2018 10/04/2018 10,000     39835/17 24/08/2017 Sergey Nikolayevich Samoylov 03/07/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/03/2018 16/05/2018 6,525     53755/17 29/06/2017 Dmitriy Eduardovich Skvortsov 17/11/1977       16/01/2018 25/04/2018 3,190     54221/17 21/06/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Shatilov 20/03/1975 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 13/02/2018 09/04/2018 8,000   54483/17 17/07/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Postnikov 03/12/1982       16/01/2018 19/04/2018 1,000   59959/17 24/07/2017 Maksim Viktorovich Varakin 30/06/1987     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   13/02/2018 09/04/2018 5,250   64303/17 19/01/2018 Vladimir Vladimirovich Kolosenko 08/02/1980       14/09/2018 27/11/2018 3,857   69654/17 25/07/2017 Dmitriy Anatolyevich Gavrilov 18/01/1974     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   20/03/2018 21/01/2019 7,200   77198/17 19/01/2018 Dmitriy Pavlovich Godarev 17/03/1996       10/09/2018 28/11/2018 2,460   77932/17 18/09/2017 Leonid Yevgenyevich Gushanskiy 26/08/1973       09/06/2018 12/11/2018 8,750   79362/17 31/10/2017 Aleksey Vladimirovich Pashin 17/10/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 13/09/2018 2,460   79596/17 26/12/2017 Aleksey Mikhaylovich Komandikov 14/05/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 21/09/2018 5,000   2076/18 07/11/2017 Sergey Viktorovich Pavlov 04/05/1992     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 10/09/2018 02/11/2018 4,725   7544/18 17/01/2018 Elvin Alekber Ogly Akhmedov 21/09/1984       10/09/2018 12/11/2018 6,300   9179/18 09/04/2018 Aleksandr Pavlovich Kiselev 07/01/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/10/2018 19/02/2019 7,750   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.