CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFA099A87 { width:3.94%; 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 } .sF1780228 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E92E5E5 { width:12.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE65610BE { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBAF009A3 { width:29.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5F47248E { width:10.16%; 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 } .s687C3E44 { width:8.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3528E815 { width:8.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s4242624C { width:8.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C6F1F8C { width:3.94%; 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 } .sD80C7CA5 { width:8.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s51CBB987 { width:12.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s98B497B1 { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE52B564E { width:29.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD130B00A { width:10.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7085221E { width:8.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDB76C293 { width:8.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE76E8E7A { width:8.82%; 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. 46886/09 Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 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 excessive length of pre-trial 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 Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration. 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 applications”. 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 the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 (see, for example, 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 (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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 7 July 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom 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 name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative 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 / household (in euros) [i] Proposed amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant; for costs and expenses per application (in euros)     46886/09 04/08/2009 Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY 28/04/1966     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – (1) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 11/02/2011 was considered on 03/08/2011; (2) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 21/09/2010 was considered on 01/12/2010; (3) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 04/06/2010 was considered on 16/08/2010   30/10/2015   4,500 4,000     778/10 03/12/2009 Igor Valentinovich TARAKANOVSKIY 01/01/1965     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – 1) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 13/10/2009 was considered only on 19/01/2010 2) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 16/03/2010 was considered only 13/05/2010 30/10/2015   3,500 3,400     16831/11 07/02/2011 Viktor Aleksandrovich ZAGORODNIKOV 02/03/1963 Shkitskiy Aleksey Vladilenovich Irkutsk     22/01/2016 04/04/2016 3,750 3,200     75605/11 14/11/2011 Aleksey Borisovich TEMELIDI 06/07/1969         22/01/2016 21/03/2016 4,600 4,000     35009/12 07/05/2012 Vladimir Alekseyevich MAROCHKIN 01/01/1973   Myynova Yuliya Yuryevna Volgograd   22/01/2016 14/03/2016 2,850 2,500     41355/12 06/06/2012 Mariya Sergeyevna TROFIMOVA 07/09/1983 Semkin Vladimir Borisovich Tyumen   30/10/2015 19/04/2016 3,000 2,600     67459/12 20/09/2012 Aleksey Mikhaylovich SHUMILKIN 13/04/1982         22/01/2016   3,800 3,200     81857/12 27/11/2012 Maksim Anatolyevich TAVOLZHANSKIY 01/01/1970 Fomin Mikhail Anatolyevich Moscow     22/01/2016 29/03/2016 3,500 3,100     13832/13 19/02/2013 Ruslan Viktorovich TELKOV 21/10/1980       30/10/2015 16/02/2016 1,200 1,000   56979/13 29/08/2013 Dzhitender Kumar SINGLA 01/06/1972       22/01/2016 22/03/2016 1,950 1,800   21135/15 15/04/2015 Dmitriy Viktorovich KLIMENKO 29/06/1972 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog   15/01/2016   1,900 2,100     [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.