CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .sFC08921A { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.1pt; text-align:left } .s4EAA2592 { width:14.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD8737946 { width:4.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3B9B45E1 { width:177.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A253A10 { width:190.77pt; text-indent:0pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s18158899 { width:4.88%; 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 } .s5A311C5D { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8D51436F { width:12.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF1DF3B19 { width:11.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2CC57508 { width:19.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sACC3B8C4 { width:9.64%; 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 } .sA160E30D { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s23208280 { width:21.36%; 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 } .sFAFB0546 { width:4.88%; 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 } .s6B7CF416 { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s25AC1B0 { width:12.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F0832F0 { width:11.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A5DD6FD { width:19.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8CF304BB { width:9.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAF3B7830 { width:9.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E688B19 { width:21.36%; 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. 13946/10 Galina Valeryevna KARUNAS against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 22 September 2016.     Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX 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 (in euros) [i]     13946/10 25/01/2010 Galina Valeryevna KARUNAS 08/09/1981         12/02/2016   2,450     22297/10 23/03/2010 Rasul Akhmadiyayevich NOGEROV 04/09/1978 Bittirov Alim Khamidovich Nalchik   12/02/2016   11,000     42290/10 18/05/2010 Maksim Nikolayevich KOZLOVSKIY 11/02/1991       12/02/2016   1,550     42304/10 02/07/2010 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ROSHCHEVKIN 11/02/1974       02/02/2016   1,600     44402/10 29/06/2010 Roman Gennadyevich POPKOV 26/12/1966       02/02/2016 15/06/2016 1,900     47609/10 10/06/2010 Andrey Sergeyevich GUMNIKOV 04/12/1978         12/02/2016   6,350     47691/10 12/07/2010 Nikolay Yevgenyevich GORDIYENKO 20/05/1976     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 12/02/2016   3,200     48456/10 13/07/2010 Denis Gennadyevich SALOKHA 03/03/1974     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 12/02/2016   3,550     52307/10 20/08/2010 Dmitriy Vadimovich MAVLYUDOV 13/07/1980     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 02/02/2016   2,500   59936/10 26/09/2010 Vladimir Khutushevich PATAPOV 30/01/1962       12/02/2016   2,050   31636/12 13/04/2012 Vasiliy Veniaminovich MIDTSEV 27/05/1960 Romashov Andrey Mikhaylovich Moscow Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention 22/01/2016   3,200   56147/14 26/07/2014 Mikhail Nikolayevich BOGDANOV 22/06/1961 Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow   12/02/2016   2,000   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.