CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juin 2021

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .sAE4916B8 { width:96.07pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s30F5263B { height:27.9pt } .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 } .s22725D7A { height:24.85pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sECD123DC { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 68636/13 and 68638/13 Stanislav Yuriyovych CHYSTYAKOV against Ukraine and Inokentiy Svyatoslavych VYROVYY against Ukraine (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Jovan Ilievski,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 22 October 2013, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike a part of applications out of the list of cases, the respondent Government’s observations on another part of applications, and the applicants’ replies to these submissions, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr R.V. Mititel, a lawyer practising in Kyiv. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ detention and procedural deficiencies during the extension of that detention were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications as regards the above complaints and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications. The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for their detention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the relevant parts of 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 as regards the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations. 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 finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, this part of the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore 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 the continued examination of the applications in that part. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the applications out of the list as regards the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ detention. The applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 4 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 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention as regards the complaints under Article   5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicants’ detention; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention ( lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention ) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     68636/13 22/10/2013 Stanislav Yuriyovych CHYSTYAKOV 1974 30/11/2015 01/02/2016 4,500     68638/13 22/10/2013 Inokentiy Svyatoslavych VYROVYY 1974 30/11/2015 02/02/2016 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.