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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s95ED174C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC1A90076 { width:3.54%; 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 } .sF1DF3B19 { width:11.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s59C37059 { width:15.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA115783 { width:23.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s29C8AD35 { width:12.58%; 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 } .s9A561969 { width:11.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s41579220 { width:22.04%; 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 } .s4850AD88 { width:3.54%; 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 } .s3F0832F0 { width:11.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s111D107F { width:15.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sEBBB71DB { width:23.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA3CA3A3 { width:12.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6AFFE928 { width:11.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s701D278F { width:22.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4774500 { height:34.9pt } .s5FFF0A73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:5pt } .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. 73048/17 Nikolay Anatolyevich BONDARENKO 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 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). 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 (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 (see the appended table) as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no.   44291/18 complained about another period of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration. With regard to that period of detention, 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 application no.   44291/18 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 application no.   44291/18 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)   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]     73048/17 20/09/2017 Nikolay Anatolyevich BONDARENKO 15/03/1967 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/12/2019   7,650     8562/18 02/02/2018 Vladimir Gennadyevich KOCHESHKOV 17/12/1975   21/01/2020 26/02/2020 4,500     18545/18 29/11/2018 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich PODBORNOV 29/06/1981 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   4,500     36300/18 16/07/2018 Andrey Yuryevich GREBNEV 24/07/1988 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   5,400     41442/18 06/08/2018 Aleksey Vyacheslavovich YEFREMOV 22/02/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 10/03/2020 4,500     41870/18 01/10/2018 Maksim Anatolyevich VOLKOV 19/06/1995 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   6,525     41896/18 08/08/2018 Aleksandr Anatolyevich BADANIN 01/03/1972 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   7,425     42204/18 01/08/2018 Roman Alekseyevich DROBYSHEV 11/07/1977 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   4,500     44056/18 22/10/2018 Sergey Mikhaylovich DONSKOY 21/10/1980 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   5,625   44291/18 14/01/2019 Ivan Pavlovich IGNATYEV 12/02/1987 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   5,175   45668/18 28/08/2018 Stanislav Yuryevich IVANOV 28/03/1985 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   6,300   45831/18 10/09/2018 Sergey Vyacheslavovich LOYEV 20/09/1972   21/01/2020 25/02/2020 5,625   46660/18 13/09/2018 Fedor Sergeyevich NOZDRIN 04/10/1989 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   5,175   51222/18 26/11/2018 Yuriy Nikolayevich TEREKHIN 07/11/1978 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   6,300   52406/18 24/10/2018 Yuriy Gennadyevich TARMAYEV 18/07/1960 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 24/02/2020 5,625   53065/18 15/10/2018 Grigoriy Grigoryevich IVANOV 12/06/1972 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020 03/03/2020 6,075   59808/18 30/11/2018 Aleksey Vladimirovich PLOTNIKOV 17/09/1982 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/10/2019   7,000   1399/19 05/12/2018 Nikolay Valeryevich PAVLOV 07/07/1990 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 09/10/2018 to 05/11/2018; by van, and train; overcrowding, limited access to toilet 15/10/2019   6,500   3823/19 20/08/2018 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KHUDYAKOV 23/06/1989 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/10/2019   5,250   25739/19 22/04/2019 Dmitriy Olegovich LONDAREV 22/04/1979 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/10/2019   5,175   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant