CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .s3BFCC6D7 { width:4.54%; 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 } .sE6DD15E7 { width:11.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s201C0C3C { width:11.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBABAB235 { width:10.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s17F8146C { width:23.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9707EF80 { width:12.4%; 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 } .s40A64FEA { width:14.32%; 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 } .sAA1E1ED9 { width:4.54%; 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 } .sC8F1D57 { width:11.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s46A63A27 { width:11.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD86ACDB9 { width:10.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD65F77F4 { width:23.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8CA5DECE { width:12.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAF147033 { width:14.32%; 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. 59396/08 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ROGOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   Decembеr 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 applications nos. 9411/10 and 21806/15 they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ right guaranteed by Article   5 § 4 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), as well as that concerning delays in the examination of appeals against detention orders and pertaining to applicant’s absence from detention hearings (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 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 20 December 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   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]     59396/08 30/10/2008 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ROGOV 12/11/1983             13/07/2016   1,350     9411/10 03/01/2010 Valeriy Ivanovich PROSHIN 13/04/1954 Lugantsev Konstantin Nikolayevich belaya kalitva Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - (1) Absence at the appeal hearings on 06/07/2009 (2) Delayed examination of the appeal against the detention order of 21/05/2009 (on 06/07/2009)   13/07/2016   2,700     54964/10 21/03/2011 Valeriy Leonidovich KATAKOV 20/09/1964               13/07/2016   1,200     23104/11 31/03/2011 Leonid Konstantinovich ANDREYEV 07/05/1962     Andreyev Aleksey Leonidovich Kazan     13/07/2016   1,100     66611/11 25/09/2011 Igor Anatolyevich BEREZYUK 30/01/1988     Agranovskiy Dmitriy Vladimirovich Elektrostal   01/06/2016 21/07/2016 900     76879/14 13/11/2014 Liliya Olegovna NAYDENOVA 28/09/1983           13/07/2016 02/11/2016 1,800     21806/15 30/04/2015 Aleksandr Anatolyevich POTKIN 29/04/1976     Khrunova Irina Vladimirovna Kazan Art. 5 (4) - Delayed review of the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 17/10/2014, 23/10/2014, 28/11/2014, 26/02/2015. 13/07/2016 13/09/2016 2,500   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.