CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 novembre 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 } .sF2EF8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s761D06F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s98AB28CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; 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 } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION This version was rectified on 12   April and 27 July 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Application no. 47564/08 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SHAMADRIN against Russia and 13 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   November 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of 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 Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of 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 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 declaration made by the Government, the cases 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 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 8 December 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   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) [i]     47564/08 17/06/2008 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SHAMADRIN 07/02/1967         15/03/2016 20/07/2016 5,875     14030/09 19/02/2009 Petr Aleksandrovich GUSKOV 30/03/1973   Lev Nikolayevich IVANOV Astrakhan   15/03/2016 20/07/2016 10,500     57500/09 21/10/2009 Pavel Vladimirovich SKACHEVSKIY 01/06/1989   Dmitriy Vladimirovich AGRANOVSKIY Elektrostal     15/03/2016 11/07/2016 12,750     64294/09 30/11/2009 Andrey Nikolayevich MYLOV 05/07/1968         15/03/2016 01/07/2016 6,750     52042/11 18/07/2011 Sergey Viktorovich PILYUGIN 08/03/1963       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 27/07/2016 8,875     65866/11 12/09/2011   Maksim Alekseyevich [1] GRACHEV 04/09/1987   Andrey Yuryevich BORISOV 18/12/1985   Mikhail Yuryevich KIRILLOV 22/02/1984     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/02/2016 26/08/2016 3,960     71118/11 01/11/2011 Oleg Aleksandrovich PONKIN 06/08/1965       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 02/08/2016 4,740     2333/12 25/11/2011 Vyacheslav Anatolyevich ZLOKAZOV 02/06/1969   Svetlana Fedorovna PONOMAREVA Pervouralsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 09/08/2016 9,625     3793/12 23/09/2011 Dmitriy Leonidovich NEPRIZVANOV [2] 21/07/1981       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 19/09/2016 8,750   21355/12 05/03/2012 Sergey Nikolayevich STAROSTIN 08/07/1971       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 27/07/2016 3,960   56372/12 25/06/2012 Andrey Leonidovich MALTSEV 18/10/1969     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 09/08/2016 7,375   58437/12 21/08/2012 Konstantin Vladimirovich KOKORIN 27/10/1970     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 18/07/2016 9,625   63128/12 12/09/2012 Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich CHALKOV 23/01/1988 Ignatova Yelena Vladimirovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 18/07/2016 13,750   45649/13 30/06/2013 Mikhail Anatolyevich FILIMONOV 15/11/1973     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   15/02/2016 28/07/2016 4,740   [1] Rectified on 12 April 2017: the text was "Maksim Aleksandrovich GRACHEV" [2] Rectified on 27 July 2017: the text was "Dmitriy Leonidovich NEPRIZVALOV” [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.