CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.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 } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s5D5F90DD { width:9.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6E5B5299 { width:189.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sFC02FF89 { width:3.34%; 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 } .s4DB80EE1 { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCF8C1C59 { width:13.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3611271C { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA9AD033 { width:22.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC80DDB22 { width:12.28%; 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 } .s2F1D810D { width:11.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4214325C { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s581AE1D3 { width:3.34%; 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 } .s6A11E46B { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s65D2757 { width:13.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3FE1E5CE { width:13.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A004302 { width:22.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1846FB10 { width:12.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEEAB5E1C { width:11.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85023616 { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9F4500 { height:36.3pt } .s5FFF0A74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:6pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sEA7A29CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 8584/17 Nikolay Nikolayevich UTYUZHNIKOV against Russia and 22 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   May   2020 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. 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 terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants 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, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013), as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the unilateral declarations (see Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019). 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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 as well as other complaints raised under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table, and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicants in applications nos.   5874/18 and 36243/18 complained about other periods of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. With regard to those periods of detention, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17March 2020). It follows that this part of applications nos.   5874/18 and 36243/18 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 concerning the inadequate conditions of detention as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law, as listed in 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.   5874/18 and 36243/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020. {   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) [1]     8584/17 01/03/2017 Nikolay Nikolayevich UTYUZHNIKOV 26/04/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019 - 5,175     10637/17 05/04/2017 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich SARAYEV 03/12/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019 - 5,625     33884/17 26/04/2017 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich CHUKAYEV 27/04/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019 - 6,300     4131/18 29/11/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich VINOGRADOV 02/04/1976     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 16/12/2019 - 9,000     5864/18 25/01/2018 Erik Sagatelovich ARUTYUNYAN 09/05/1986 Kiryushkin Andrey Vladimirovich Dzerzhinsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 16/07/2018 - 5,000     5874/18 25/01/2018 Sergey Viktorovich MINEYEV 23/02/1974 Kiryushkin Andrey Vladimirovich Dzerzhinsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 16/07/2018 - 5,000     6346/18 11/12/2017 Yuriy Fedorovich IVANOV 04/06/1976     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019 - 9,675     15251/18 06/03/2018 Vitaliy Valeryevich NEVESELOV 28/09/1978 Matskevich Sergey Viktorovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 09/12/2019 4,500     17004/18 17/03/2018 Stanislav Vasilyevich CHERNOV 03/05/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 - 4,500   19843/18 10/04/2018 Vladimir Andreyevich SMIRNOV 02/12/1992       31/10/2018 15/03/2019 4,500   21636/18 08/04/2018 Sergey Yevgenyevich FEFILOV 06/09/1983 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 12/12/2019 4,500   22561/18 20/06/2018 Andrey Gennadyevich SARAYEV 20/06/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 - 4,500   22971/18 06/07/2018 Denis Vladimirovich KUZMIN 29/06/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019 - 5,400   23824/18 10/05/2018 Artem Rafailovich ARASLANOV 27/07/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 16/10/2018 - 4,500   27638/18 10/05/2018 Rafis Safargaliyevich VAGAPOV 22/05/1969     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 17/12/2017 to 26/01/2018; van, train, transit cells,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and inadequate conditions of detention during transport 25/01/2019 23/03/2019 5,500   28873/18 22/05/2018 Artem Aleksandrovich PROKHORENKO 01/07/1985     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 17/12/2017 to 26/01/2018; van, train, transit cells,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 25/01/2019 21/03/2019 5,500   29325/18 14/09/2018 Vasiliy Vladimirovich POPOV 18/03/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 - 4,500   29397/18 04/06/2018 Konstantin Vladimirovich IZMAYLOV 07/07/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 - 6,750   31864/18 28/06/2018 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich KIRICHENKO 03/03/1976     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 05/02/2019 30/04/2019 4,500   31877/18 28/06/2018 Roman Valeryevich NEFEDOV 12/05/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 05/02/2019 08/04/2019 4,500   33307/18 29/06/2018 Ivan Sergeyevich LITVINOV 21/03/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/10/2019 09/12/2019 4,500   35573/18 16/07/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich KOTOV 24/11/1975     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 - 7,200   36243/18 19/10/2018 Nikolay Nikolayevich TSYPLYATKIN 11/02/1969     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 - 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant