CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sDFB35AA3 { width:181.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD95A1679 { width:173.54pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC45C2AB { width:3.32%; 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 } .s6EDAE7A5 { width:7.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2334154C { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E7E8960 { width:11.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7994112 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6D39A02A { width:10.36%; 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 } .sABD3E7AF { width:14.82%; 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 } .s8DBDE82D { width:3.32%; 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 } .s15D72D55 { width:7.8%; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6F817531 { width:11.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5B3C04F3 { width:30.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5821A369 { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s699BD69A { width:14.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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. 41234/13 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV against Russia and 20 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 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 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, 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, 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and listed in the appended table. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 the applications 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (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 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 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]     41234/13 03/06/2013 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV 26/08/1971     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport of the applicant on 19/08/2013 in an overcrowded van (0.2   sq m. of personal space) without ventilation; and his subsequent detention in a transit cell in unsanitary conditions,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport 12/09/2016   4,500     57248/15 11/11/2015 Artur Rinatovich CHALDAYEV 06/08/1986 Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna Saransk Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was kept in a metal cage during the trial proceedings which ended on 14/05/2015 (date of verdict),   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in an overcrowded van on numerous occasions in the period from 10/06/2014 to 18/05/2015 16/01/2018 05/04/2018 8,700     18949/17 18/02/2017 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KAZAMAROV 03/08/1978 Zimirev Yevgeniy Ivanovich Nizhnekamsk Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of detention in a transit cell in the court building on the days of the hearings until 01/11/2016,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/09/2017   2,000     72031/17 24/09/2017 Ismoildzhon Nosirovich SULAYMONOV 13/02/1994 Seleznev Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 03/04/2018 17/05/2018 5,500     75886/17 20/09/2017 Nikolay Vasilyevich ROMANYUK 06/05/1956     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 11/06/2018   5,250     80496/17 10/11/2017 Timur Sergeyevich TROTSENKO 11/03/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 11/07/2017 15/05/2018 20/07/2018 3,000     80781/17 27/11/2017 Aleksey Anatolyevich RASTOPCHIN 15/05/1984 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport between the detention facilities and courts and detention in transit cells from October 2010 to July 2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport 15/05/2018   15,000     84530/17 19/09/2017 Ramazan Abdulmutalibovich ABDULLAYEV 25/01/1996     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Poor conditions of transport by van and train on 12/09/2017-13/09/2017 and in a van on 18/09/2017, as well as detention in transit cells of   IZ-1 of the Nizhniy Novgorod 16/07/2018 26/09/2018 2,100     84578/17 09/12/2017 Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN 12/05/1962 Timireva Olga Vladimirovna Moscow Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Return journeys on 30/08/2017, 26/10/2017 and 24/11/2017 between IZ-1 of Moscow and Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow: 0.5 sq.m of personal space, no access to toilet, inadequate temperature, insufficient seats for everybody.,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 11/06/2018 28/06/2018 5,285   4278/18 12/12/2017 Aleksandr Leonidovich ANDREYEV 21/03/1976       17/07/2018 25/09/2018 2,095   5693/18 29/12/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich SUKHOV 18/04/1980 Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 18/09/2018 20/11/2018 2,095   8241/18 05/01/2018 Ivan Vladimirovich KAPITONOV 10/03/1971 Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich St Petersburg   18/09/2018 05/12/2018 1,750   10675/18 14/06/2018 Viktor Konstantinovich MARTSENYUK 18/06/1987       25/01/2019   2,825   13685/18 05/03/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich VORONOV 04/01/1982       12/03/2019 15/05/2019 7,875   14467/18 14/03/2018 Roman Aleksandrovich IVANKIN 30/12/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 09/01/2019 26/03/2019 9,500   27168/18 14/05/2018 Viktor Konstantinovich SOLOVYEV 07/08/1958       25/01/2019   9,000   29949/18 07/06/2018 Roman Borisovich NEVELSKIY 07/01/1980 Kuznetsov Aleksey Alekseyevich St Petersburg   25/01/2019   3,555   30074/18 14/06/2018 Dmitriy Sergeyevich SENKIN 07/01/1979     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 25/01/2019 27/03/2019 3,528   30367/18 26/05/2018 Pavel Valeryevich GRACHEV 13/04/1976     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 12/03/2019   6,500   30803/18 14/06/2018 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich BARANOV 10/05/1962       18/02/2019 13/05/2019 4,950   36454/18 23/07/2018 Mikhail Petrovich SETSKO 21/05/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 12/03/2019 30/04/2019 6,150     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.