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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB47177AF { width:3.06%; 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 } .s773E884B { width:10.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D5CA36 { width:11.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s20DD32B0 { width:10.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s82C36BDC { width:30.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2FCE6CFC { width:8.24%; 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 } .s5A44712E { width:9.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBEF24FD1 { width:15.54%; 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 } .s26F4715B { width:3.06%; 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 } .sE517F707 { width:10.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCB1E0658 { width:11.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s97B049DE { width:10.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCFC6597E { width:30.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC2D0AC95 { width:8.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4992E36A { width:9.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCA35C7 { width:15.54%; 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. 77635/11 Sergey Vladimirovich TSEPELEV 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 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 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no.   38417/15 the applicant complained in respect of two non-consecutive periods of his pre-trial detention, i.e., from 28 January 2013 to 6   October 2014 and from 19   May 2016 to 30 January 2017 . In application no.   40457/18, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention (see the appended table). 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention. In application no.   40457/18, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant’s 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the unilateral declarations (see, for example, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012 and Dirdizov v.   Russia, no.   41461/10, 27   November 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 (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 insofar as 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the unilateral declarations. As regards application no.   38417/15, the above findings apply to the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 19   May 2016 to 30 January 2017. As to the complaint in respect of the period of pre-trial detention from 28   January 2013 to 6   October 2014, the Court 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of application no.   38417/15 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 in so far as they concern the excessive length of pre-trial detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law in application no. 40457/18 and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike this part of the applications insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of application no.   38417/15 inadmissible. 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   5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) 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 comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in   euros) [1]     77635/11 17/11/2011 Sergey Vladimirovich TSEPELEV 1966         28/01/2021 11/03/2021 6,440     38417/15 18/07/2015 Aleksey Alekseyevich KATKALOV 1981         18/03/2020 20/05/2020 850     40457/18 20/08/2018 Viktor Ivanovich FILATOV 1961   Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich Vnukovskoye Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van on numerous occasions from the detention facility to the courthouse since 30/06/2015, proceedings are still pending; transport on-going; use of an individual box ("stakan") to transport the applicant; extremely cramped conditions; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperatures,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of 04/12/2018, the appeal review on 19/02/2019; detention order of 01/04/2019, appealed against on 02/04/2019, examined on appeal on 25/04/2019,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage and a glass compartment ("aquarium") in extremely cramped conditions with the applicant having been handcuffed in a number of hearings before the Basmanyy District Court of Moscow and Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow since 30/06/2015. 10/04/2020 15/07/2020 3,400     21725/19 06/04/2019 Raul Rinatovich BEKPAYEV 1995   Chumakov Lev Yuryevich Kazan   02/10/2019 04/12/2019 900     1729/20 19/12/2019 Arkadiy Andreyevich PILIPENKO 1988         14/08/2020 17/09/2020 2,380     10266/20 04/02/2020 Petr Andreyevich EBISHEV 1992   Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich Moscow   26/10/2020 14/12/2020 1,890     26701/20 10/06/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich SIROTENKO 1978   Marchenko Roman Vasilyevich Astrakhan   28/01/2021 11/03/2021 2,100   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant