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 } .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 } .sC29EF127 { width:3.7%; 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 } .s4242624C { width:8.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4108D20F { width:14.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7DF56A6 { width:11.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6FB6CD7E { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3D156BE3 { width:12.22%; 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 } .s16E87392 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; 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 } .s198AA5BD { width:3.7%; 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 } .sE76E8E7A { width:8.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC194862F { width:14.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s976A0DC3 { width:11.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s170DDBA2 { width:23.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5F3D627 { width:12.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7C56B40 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; 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. 23442/18 Dmitriy Fedorovich SOKOLOV against Russia and 8 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 during transport 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 during transport. 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 during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 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 (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 (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 during transport, as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table), on the basis of the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no.   46721/18 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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 application no.   46721/18 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 during transport, as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see 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.   46721/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 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 during transport) 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]     23442/18 08/05/2018 Dmitriy Fedorovich SOKOLOV 11/07/1972     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 16/10/2018 12/03/2019 1,000     30801/18 15/06/2018 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich DRUZHININ 15/04/1956       05/02/2019 30/04/2019 1,000     31767/18 25/06/2018 Anatoliy Anatolyevich TURDYYEV 28/10/1983 Sidorov Ivan Severovich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 21/01/2019 04/04/2019 1,000     32334/18 27/06/2018 Mansur Takhirovich SAYDASHEV 07/01/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 05/02/2019 10/04/2019 1,000     32439/18 26/06/2018 Vladislav Anatolyevich ZAPOLSKIY 31/12/1985     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 22/01/2019   1,000     33115/18 27/06/2018 Valeriy Viktorovich BABAYEV 11/04/1976 Sidorov Ivan Severovich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 21/01/2019 05/04/2019 1,000     34400/18 04/07/2018 Andrey Vasilyevich ZHURAVLEV 04/04/1978       11/03/2019   1,000     35504/18 10/07/2018 Magomed Ortsovich BATAZHEV 22/06/1981 Sidorov Ivan Severovich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 05/02/2019 23/04/2019 1,000     46721/18 13/09/2018 Maksim Viktorovich GRIGORYEV 04/01/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 02/10/2019 04/12/2019 1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant