CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .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 } .sE8934522 { 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43878/18 Yevgeniy Albertovich KRIVOLAP against Russia and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the 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 8 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations 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 (see appended table below). The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will 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 undertake 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 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 Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   8 § 1 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year 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 declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros) [1]     43878/18 21/12/2018 Yevgeniy Albertovich KRIVOLAP 1992       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, in respect of poor conditions of transport and in respect of allocation to a remote colony;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by train and van, detention in a transit cell, from 11 to 12/09/2018; insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet;     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction   - detention in IK-23 OIU-25 Krasnoyarsk Region and IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region since 27/08/2018; less than 3 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, narrow passages in the cell;   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - video surveillance by female operators in IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region since 27/10/2018 09/10/2020 18/03/2021             12,500     20999/20 10/09/2020 Artem Avenirovich KULISHKIN 1977       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility 02/04/2021 04/02/2021 6,000     24617/20 20/05/2020 Household Sergey Aleksandrovich SHELUDYANKIN 1985   Darya Pavlovna SHELUDYANKINA 1986     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility 03/03/2021 11/01/2021 6,000     41385/20 25/08/2020 Svetlana Sergeyevna YEREMEYEVA 1965       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility 02/04/2021 19/02/2021 6,000     41572/20 20/08/2020 Dmitriy Anatolyevich PITKIN 1970         02/04/2021 22/02/2021 6,000     42938/20 04/09/2020 Shakhban Sultanovich GERIMSULTANOV 1971       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility 02/04/2021 22/02/2021 6,000     45132/20 21/09/2020 Kirill Olegovich SARAPULOV 1999   Kozhevnikova Yelena Zafirovna Nizhniy Tagil Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility 02/04/2021 11/02/2021 6,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.