CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s2E1B1DF4 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DA62232 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s21F5955C { width:12.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43D2CA1F { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC77DD2C2 { width:9.94%; 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 } .s2334154C { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDA643DBF { width:18.96%; 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 } .sC4BD41D7 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1989B891 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8FDD1048 { width:12.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF05FEE { width:17.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAC97B797 { width:9.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s143460DA { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2F7949A9 { width:18.96%; 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. 60537/17 Sergey Sergeyevich KUTKIN against Russia and 18 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   June   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, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (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, as well as other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table) as covered by the unilateral declarations. The applicants in applications nos.   8949/18 and 15466/18 complained about other periods of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration. 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, 17   March 2020). It follows that this part of applications nos.   8949/18 and 15466/18 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 the applications nos.   8949/18 and 15466/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 July 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]     60537/17 04/08/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich KUTKIN 08/03/1983 Madyudin Aleksey Grigoryevich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 09/01/2020 4,725     79909/17 13/11/2017 Aleksey Alekseyevich KRYAZHNIKOV 27/10/1980       22/05/2018 11/07/2018 4,750     79913/17 07/11/2017 Denis Nikolayevich MALASHIN 30/04/1984       22/05/2018 03/07/2018 4,500     1884/18 11/12/2017 Viktor Aleksandrovich MAMONOV 17/03/1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 11/12/2019 4,500     3242/18 22/12/2017 Oleg Vladimirovich KONYAKHIN 25/06/1976 Butrimenko Marianna Dmitriyevna Volgograd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 06/12/2019 13/01/2020 4,500     7387/18 31/01/2018 Rafis Bulyakbayevich KURBANOV 24/10/1972       14/01/2019 28/03/2019 4,500     8949/18 05/02/2018 Aleksey Vladimirovich RODIONOV 05/03/1980     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 11/12/2018 5,287     11690/18 27/01/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich RUSAKOV 19/04/1976 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 03/01/2020 4,500     12143/18 24/02/2018 Anatoliy Mikhaylovich TARASENKOV 17/04/1990 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 04/12/2018 4,500   13646/18 28/02/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich FOMIN 22/05/1979 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 03/01/2020 4,500   15466/18 12/03/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich STERKHOV 18/06/1992       16/12/2019 17/02/2020 4,500   17606/18 16/03/2018 Anatoliy Valeryevich BOCHKOVSKIY 16/08/1985 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 04/12/2018 4,500   19022/18 27/03/2018 Olesya Viktorovna PAVLOVA 28/02/1981 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 04/10/2018 04/12/2018 4,500   23263/18 24/04/2018 Eduard Viktorovich NOVIKOV 30/09/1985 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 03/01/2020 4,500   24432/18 03/05/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich BOGOSLOVSKIY 07/03/1971 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 31/10/2019 03/01/2020 4,500   28466/18 08/06/2018 Mikhail Aleksandrovich KOZYNTSEV 15/05/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 11/03/2019 26/04/2019 5,062   36171/18 19/07/2018 Vladimir Vasilyevich ALESHKIN 24/04/1965       11/03/2019 27/05/2019 4,500   45029/18 31/08/2018 Marian Angelov PENEV 29/04/1987   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 01/06/2018 and 02/06/2018; van, train; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet 15/10/2019   5,500   50994/18 02/10/2018 Andrey Nikolayevich NAUMOV 26/08/1987 Matskevich Sergey Viktorovich St Petersbourg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/10/2019 03/12/2019 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant