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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5442DDD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .sEB67F913 { width:190.29pt; 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 } .sEF9243AB { width:3.62%; 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 } .sACC3B8C4 { width:9.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BDC173A { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s859E3002 { width:10.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63C5EE82 { width:20.16%; 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 } .sE6DD15E7 { width:11.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9517564C { width:19.14%; 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 } .s626D730A { width:3.62%; 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 } .s8CF304BB { width:9.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27855A4F { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s858B1BD7 { width:10.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF87890 { width:20.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC8F1D57 { width:11.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB6D29823 { width:19.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .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 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 52295/07 Mikhail Vitalyevich DIKIN against Russia and 17 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in application no. 52295/07, 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, 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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 the 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.   52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. The Court has examined those applications 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. In particular, in application no.   27617/18 the applicant should avail himself 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, 17 March 2020). It follows that this part of applications nos.   52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 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.   52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 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]     52295/07 16/11/2007 Mikhail Vitalyevich DIKIN 28/03/1963       02/11/2015 07/12/2015 9,000     67770/16 31/10/2016 Khayytzhan Balyshovich KASYMOV 01/02/1987     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 11/05/2017 25/07/2017 5,250     52774/17 16/01/2018 Artem Nikolayevich PAVLIKHIN 30/06/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/09/2018 27/11/2018 3,528     61365/17 07/08/2017 Yevgeniy Vasilyevich SHERMANOV 15/02/1982     Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention from 20/03/2014 to 27/04/2017;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 12/02/2016 to 27/04/2017; van, overcrowding, dirt, lack of fresh air. 22/02/2018   14,500     83876/17 30/11/2017 Sergey Viktorovich SMIRNOV 20/01/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.     01/02/2019   3,555     5916/18 19/05/2018 Mikhail Andreyevich LEONIDOV 04/02/1995 Ukolova Svetlana Olegovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/01/2019 20/03/2019 4,285     11821/18 27/02/2018 Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich GUSEVSKIY 25/06/1996       15/01/2019   2,095     13815/18 05/03/2018 Aleksey Anatolyevich TIKHONOV 17/02/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2019 12/03/2019 8,550     14773/18 23/03/2018 Rustam Aliyevich KHISYAMOV 19/10/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 18/07/2017 to 28/09/2017; transit cell, van (on six occasions, roundtrips). 10/01/2019 28/03/2019 4,555   15478/18 14/03/2018 Nikita Aleksandrovich CHIRKOV 21/04/1990 Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich Nizhniy Novgorod   10/01/2019 26/03/2019 1,895   16495/18 02/04/2018 Pavel Valentinovich MEDVEDEV 26/12/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 09/01/2019   4,500   19733/18 26/03/2018 Vitaliy Sergeyevich GAPONENKO 05/09/1983 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 10/01/2019 21/03/2019 2,460   20253/18 14/04/2018 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich SNOPOV 25/07/1996 Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich Kineshma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2019 25/03/2019 1,730   20283/18 24/04/2018 Sayar Abrarovich MAKHMUTOV 15/02/1969     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2019 23/03/2019 3,920   24160/18 21/05/2018 Soslan Sergeyevich KABOLOV 20/06/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 30/10/2018 09/05/2019 8,850   26385/18 21/05/2018 Ilya Aleksandrovich SERDYUKOV 01/06/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport in an overcrowded van and detention in a transit cell in the period from 23/08/2017 to 16/02/2018; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of fresh air. 16/01/2019 28/03/2019 9,500   27617/18 16/05/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich YAKOVLEV 20/06/1983       09/01/2019 26/03/2019 6,975   30245/18 09/06/2018 Azamat Ruslanovich SAKIYEV 04/02/1984 Demidova Olga Petrovna St Petersburg   18/02/2019 30/04/2019 4,285   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant