CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 février 2019

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sEA7A29CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:sub } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } 19 THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 35461/17 Igor Aleksandrovich KARGAPOLTSEV against Russia and 19 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   February 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, 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, 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 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 insofar as they were covered by the unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no. 4912/18 also raised a complaint about another period of detention, not covered by the unilateral declaration. The Court has examined the application 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, that complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does 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 application no. 4912/18 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 insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government which were accepted by the applicants; Declares the remainder of application no. 4912/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 7 March 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s 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) [1]     35461/17 18/08/2017 Igor Aleksandrovich Kargapoltsev 20/01/1989       15/05/2018 16/07/2018 4,650     51611/17 20/09/2017 Anton Yuryevich Stekolnikov 20/07/1992     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 25/05/2018 10/09/2018 2,460     69515/17 13/12/2017 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Makhanev 06/06/1978     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 22/10/2018 3,920     69518/17 22/01/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich   Drozdov 24/04/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 18/09/2018 27/11/2018 2,450     70287/17 25/10/2017 Aleksey Valentinovich Vasilyev 08/12/1976       16/07/2018 29/10/2018 4,285     73346/17 17/11/2017 Andrey Sergeyevich Pakholkov 31/01/1982       16/07/2018 04/10/2018 6,250     77242/17 11/01/2018 Sergey Vladimirovich Kotov 19/07/1979       18/09/2018 27/11/2018 3,555     77252/17 07/02/2018 Vladimir Nikolayevich   Zhukov 30/09/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 18/09/2018 27/11/2018 6,250     77258/17 22/02/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Ratnikov 17/09/1969       18/09/2018 26/11/2018 6,250   78234/17 30/10/2017 Kristian Olegovich Karabeynikov 27/10/1996 Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   20/06/2018 17/08/2018 4,285   78522/17 30/10/2017 Dmitriy Andreyevich Smirnov 08/03/1988 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/06/2018 24/08/2018 6,500   78536/17 04/11/2017 Dmitriy Anatolyevich Koryakin 28/08/1977 Orlov Andrey Stanislavovich St Petersburg Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Moscow District Court of St Petersburg on 03/05/2017   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 15/05/2018 03/08/2018 7,000   79411/17 26/10/2017 Dmitriy Petrovich Valovenko 25/03/1984 Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/06/2018 10/08/2018 8,500   80514/17 08/11/2017 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Pelevin 07/04/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/06/2018 03/08/2018 1,730   82406/17 24/11/2017 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Danilov 07/05/1990 Boychenko Yegor Leonidovych Strasbourg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 20/06/2018 04/09/2018 13,000   4071/18 09/01/2018 Rishat Ramilyevich Myazitov 21/06/1993 Studenkova Olga Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - ,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Petrogradskiy District Court on 31/07/2017 18/09/2018 06/11/2018 7,050   4859/18 07/11/2017 Roman Vladimirovich Kamalyan 13/11/1978 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 03/10/2018 8,000   4912/18 07/11/2017 Artur Vladimirovich Kamalyan 16/01/1985 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/07/2018 03/10/2018 8,000   8827/18 08/01/2018 Dmitriy Anatolyevich Vopylev 25/10/1983 Antonova Yekaterina Vladimirovna St Petersburg   18/09/2018 23/11/2018 3,555   9609/18 17/01/2018 Oleg Vladimirovich Dzhaparov 24/01/1981       18/09/2018 27/11/2018 5,500   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.