CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s44F1B782 { width:167.34pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; 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 } .s16ED1480 { width:3.58%; 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 } .s16E87392 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8711280D { width:12.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6A6CC9F6 { width:19.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5DB90B56 { width:14.26%; 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 } .s2D1168BD { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA1A64DE { width:20.28%; 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 } .s55C3C516 { width:3.58%; 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 } .sD7C56B40 { width:12.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s36A225A5 { width:12.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7DF474E7 { width:19.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s19635E27 { width:14.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50398B03 { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1446427D { width:20.28%; 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. 4952/16 Mark Valeryevich MOSTOVOY against Russia and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   July   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 Article 13 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 Article 13 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 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 other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and indicated in the appended table. The applicants in applications nos. 34067/18 and 36567/18 also complained about other periods of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. 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. 34067/18 and 36567/18 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 absence of an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, 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 applications nos. 34067/18 and 36567/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 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   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]     4952/16 16/12/2015 Mark Valeryevich MOSTOVOY 23/07/1977   03/12/2019   4,500     16292/18 26/03/2018 Mikhail Andreyevich YERMIN 20/01/1984   21/01/2020   5,625     26409/18 17/07/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich TERENIN 24/04/1976 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   9,900     29406/18 29/11/2018 Roman Anatolyevich DEMIN 16/07/1975 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020   4,500     34067/18 30/06/2018 Konstantin Aleksandrovich LACHUGIN 31/10/1966   05/02/2019 03/04/2019 4,500     36567/18 13/07/2018 Vasiliy Sergeyevich ANTROPOV 02/06/1984   06/03/2020 14/05/2020 8,325     38251/18 24/07/2018 Sergey Sergeyevich IVANOV 21/09/1990 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020   4,500     43130/18 20/08/2018 Sergey Anatolyevich ZAKHAROV 10/06/1978 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   8,550     45217/18 09/09/2018 Aleksey Olegovich MUZAFAROV 29/08/1979 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2020   8,325   21458/19 03/04/2019 Roman Removich ABSATAROV 28/01/1991 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 21/01/2020   4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.