CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51315/17 Yevgeniy Veniaminovich KRASNOV against Russia and 13 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   April 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 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), as covered by the unilateral declarations. The applicant in application no. 16905/18 also complained about conditions of his detention in another facility. The Court has examined the complaints 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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. 16905/18 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention as covered by the unilateral declarations, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table); Declares the remainder of application no. 16905/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 May 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]     51315/17 04/06/2017 Yevgeniy Veniaminovich Krasnov 14/07/1985       16/01/2018 29/01/2019 11,500     55865/17 17/07/2017 Sergey Yuryevich Lapshin 25/07/1986 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 16/01/2018 08/03/2018 9,750     11667/18 21/01/2018 Ismoil Shodiyevich Ismoilov 19/02/1994     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 12/12/2018 7,200     12000/18 15/02/2018 Andrey Kirillovich Khmanov 20/11/1989     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 11/01/2019 5,900     12212/18 22/01/2018 Maksim Vladimirovich Maksimov 07/02/1983     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 28/11/2018 3,600     13190/18 08/02/2018 Artur Raulevich Musin 27/06/1980 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 26/11/2018 7,000     13847/18 05/02/2018 Ruslan Andreyevich Piotrovskiy 12/10/1988     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of transport by van, on several occasions between 05/05/2017 and 15/12/2017 (from detention facilities (IZ-47/1 St Petersburg) to a court house (Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court) and to another remand prison (Kresty-2) 04/10/2018 02/01/2019 3,555     13889/18 09/03/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich Novikov 03/09/1981     04/10/2018 15/01/2019 5,000     14056/18 10/03/2018 Telman Sabdullayevich Arabkhanov 18/12/1998 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 22/11/2018 2,095   16905/18 12/02/2018 Marat Kutdusovich Nurgaliyev 22/03/1977     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 04/10/2018 11/12/2018 8,850   17159/18 07/03/2018 Fazliddin Fayzidinovich Khayetov 03/11/1992       04/10/2018 05/12/2018 1,365   19791/18 09/04/2018 Vladimir Viktorovich Golovkov 24/05/1964     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by overcrowded van to take part in court hearings between 22/01/2015 and until 29/10/2017,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport 02/10/2018 05/12/2018 14,400   19793/18 09/04/2018 Vladimir Vasilyevich Sobolev 12/07/1988     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 02/10/2018 05/12/2018 5,750   21541/18 23/04/2018 Sergey Viktorovich Osipov 07/05/1970 Zvonkova Yelena Yuryevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of detention and transport,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by overcrowded van from the detention facility to take part in the investigative actions and court hearings between 19/05/2015 and 20/04/2018 02/10/2018 11/12/2018 14,400   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.