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 } .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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s6C829104 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A79 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:3pt } .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. 60555/16 Kirill Sergeyevich LOBANOV against Russia and 20 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. 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 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 unilateral declarations, and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table). The applicant in application no. 30477/18 also complained about another period of his detention during which his conditions were allegedly poor. 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, these complaints either 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 application no. 30477/18 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, insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations, and the other complaints under the well ‑ established case-law listed in the appended table; Declares the remainder of application no. 30477/18 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]     60555/16 05/10/2016 Kirill Sergeyevich Lobanov 14/08/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 11/05/2017 09/08/2017 4,000     12573/17 01/02/2017 Roman Viktorovich Fedorov 08/04/1975 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 07/10/2016; appealed against on 10/10/2016; appeal decision of 22/12/2016.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/07/2017 22/09/2017 5,000     13054/18 03/03/2018 Dmitriy Valeryevich Gusakov 09/06/1983 Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 04/10/2018 05/12/2018 5,750     13717/18 06/03/2018 Aleksandr Alekseyevich Tomskiy 04/02/1997     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 04/10/2018 05/12/2018 6,750     16493/18 19/12/2017 Aleksandr Valeryevich Katrakhov 03/09/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/10/2018 13/02/2019 3,190     19601/18 29/12/2017 Kholmirzo Bekmirzoyevich Kholmirzoyev 19/01/1985 Magomedova Roza Saidovna Moscow Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport between the detention facility and the courts on a number of occasions;     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - excessive length of judicial review of detention orders of 03/07/2017 and 04/10/2017 (examined on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 01/08/2017 and 23/11/2017 respectively). 11/03/2019 09/05/2019 6,300     20100/18 19/12/2017 Sergey Fedorovich Shavrin 02/08/1961     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/10/2018 13/02/2019 3,920     21697/18 13/04/2018 Andrey Borisovich Savelyev 25/05/1985 Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 29/10/2018 21/01/2019 4,650     21781/18 23/04/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich Kuryakov 09/03/1971 Zvonkova Yelena Yuryevna St Petersburg   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of the applicant’s transport by overcrowded van in period between 01/04/2013 and 20/04/2018 for him to take part in investigative actions and court hearings. 29/10/2018 22/01/2019 14,400   23260/18 28/04/2018 Nataliya Sergeyevna Luchkina 05/06/1990 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 29/10/2018 21/01/2019 6,250   23607/18 04/05/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Shmargilov 15/11/1980 Morozova Natalya Mikhaylovna Rodniki Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2019 15/07/2019 9,225   25986/18 18/05/2018 Adam Lechiyevich Masayev 09/05/1987 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 11/03/2019 30/04/2019 2,460   28043/18 28/05/2018 Viktoriya Yevgenyevna Lebedeva 26/10/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/01/2019 21/03/2019 5,250   28441/18 31/05/2018 Giorgiy Gelovich Kachibaya 24/05/1998 Malkova Aliya Damirovna Rodniki Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 11/03/2019 23/07/2019 2,825   28712/18 05/06/2018 Aleksandr Valeryevich Pogudin 09/08/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 09/01/2019 15/03/2019 10,350   30357/18 10/06/2018 Andrey Viktorovich Delyagin 17/11/1972     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport between IZ-47/1 St Petersburg and the Moskovskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on many occasions; overcrowding 25/01/2019 03/04/2019 7,525   30477/18 19/06/2018 Dorzhi Batorovich Sambuyev 30/04/1988 Smirnova Anna Vladimirovna St Petersburg   25/01/2019 29/03/2019 4,285   31116/18 11/06/2018 Mikhail Vladimirovich Lvov 01/11/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport and detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport from the detention facility to the courthouse in an overcrowded van. 25/01/2019 02/04/2019 8,650   31167/18 10/06/2018 Sergey Viktorovich Shutylev 24/04/1987     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 25/01/2019 03/04/2019 6,525   31270/18 22/06/2018 Yuriy Pavlovich Artokhin 17/09/1986 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;     Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention 11/03/2019 30/04/2019 7,650   33965/18 22/06/2018 Aleksey Aleksandrovich Berezin 07/04/1992       18/02/2019 08/04/2019 7,650   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.