CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 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 } .s868B1AA5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75B8D6BE { width:182.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9C1A7F7E { width:4.02%; 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 } .s1079C8ED { width:10.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5BA40C0D { width:17.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9D56672A { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2C3CD8A1 { width:10.78%; 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 } .s58A3FA77 { width:11.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66A02243 { width:18.84%; 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 } .sBFC302BA { width:4.02%; 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 } .sBA6EB93F { width:10.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF92589A6 { width:17.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s78D2DD96 { width:26.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s89CDB242 { width:10.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s69B170B8 { width:11.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82B0FB4B { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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. 4076/14 Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV against Russia and 19 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   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 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, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013). 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no. 4743/18 also complained about another period of his detention in poor conditions. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government’s objection concerning the six-month time-limit related to that complaint, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint about conditions of his detention between 10 June 2007 and 4   March 2014 was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 and the other complaints 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 application no. 4743/18 inadmissible. 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   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]     4076/14 23/12/2013 Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV 1964 Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - The applicant served his sentence in IK-30 Perm Region which was several thousand km away from his family members who lived in the Rostov Region. 28/06/2019   5,800     69191/17 04/09/2017 Maksim Ivanovich KAYUSHKIN 1988 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 03/12/2019   7,650     4289/18 15/05/2018 Yevgeniy Valeriyevich REYKO 1985 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 16/12/2019   7,875     4743/18 29/03/2018 Vasiliy Vladimirovich ANANIN 1974 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 03/12/2019   5,625     11817/18 07/11/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV 1969 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2020   4,500     29908/18 06/08/2018 Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich YEMELYANOV 1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2020   7,200     40333/18 23/07/2018 Viktor Vasilyevich LATYSHEV 1980 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019   5,400     47417/18 18/09/2018 Aleksandr Vladislavovich BOGDANOV 1977 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transport from 27/03/2018 to 28/03/2018 and 27/05/2018, train and van, severe overcrowding; restricted access to toilet. 15/10/2019 10/12/2019 8,000     47817/18 24/09/2018 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich POLYAKOV 1985 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019 04/12/2019 5,850   53378/18 24/10/2018 Anton Nikolayevich SERGIYEVICH 1983 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019   4,500   54902/18 14/01/2019 Oleg Ravilyevich GALEYEV 1984 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2020   6,300   58015/18 19/11/2018 Vladislav Yevgenyevich MAKSIMOV 1986 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019   6,250   2980/19 18/12/2018 Aleksey Petrovich GALKIN 1977 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2020   5,850   4473/19 27/12/2018 Aleksey Anatolyevich SEMENOV 1968   15/10/2019 19/11/2019 6,250   5052/19 21/12/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich PAKHMUTOV 1981 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 14/01/2020   4,500   5061/19 26/12/2018 Aleksandr Andreyevich KHASHCHEV 1983 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019 28/01/2020 6,250   5875/19 27/12/2018 Petr Viktorovich FILIPPOVSKIY 1981 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019 03/12/2019 4,500   8404/19 25/01/2019 Radik Renatovich AKHMETOV 1984 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 21/01/2020 09/03/2020 4,500   18046/19 14/03/2019 Dmitriy Anatolyevich MAKOVETSKIY 1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019 05/12/2019 4,950   28352/19 07/05/2019 Denis Nikolayevich SHAROV 1986 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15/10/2019 05/12/2019 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.