CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 avril 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E6BC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 77369/17 Roman Sergeyevich KIRILLOV against Russia and 12 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   April 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in applications nos.   17086/18 and 12174/19, 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 (see the appended table). 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 declarations 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 the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and listed in the appended table. In application no.   17086/18 the applicant also complained about another period of detention in inadequate conditions. The Court has examined this complaint 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, this 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.   17086/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. In application no.   12174/19 the applicant also complained under Article   5 §   3 about the length of his pre-trial detention. The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of the status of a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see Amuur v.   France , 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, and Dalban v.   Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §   44, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI). In the present case, the applicant was in custody from 17 August 2017 until 27 July 2018 when the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in view of the absence of criminal conduct. On 13   August 2019 the domestic court awarded the applicant compensation, stating that he had been unlawfully prosecuted and detained for a lengthy period. The Court therefore notes that the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant’s rights were violated, inter alia , in view of his pre-trial detention. The Court notes that the applicant was further awarded RUB 300,000 (approximately 4,000 euros) for his suffering. That sum exceeds the amount of compensation usualy awarded by the Court in similar cases and can be considered as constituting redress for the violation of the Convention right alleged by him in the present application (see Bolshakova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 50952/11, 6 December 2016). It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and that his application in this part must be rejected pursuant to 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 and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see the appended table); Declares the remainder of applications nos.   17086/18 and 12174/19 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) 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]     77369/17 10/05/2018 Roman Sergeyevich KIRILLOV 28/10/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/01/2019 10/09/2019 1,365     9313/18 10/05/2018 Viktor Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV 12/04/1991     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 25/01/2019 03/04/2019 5,500     11645/18 22/02/2018 Maksim Nikolayevich BABAKOV 03/03/1985       12/03/2019 28/01/2020 1,000     15573/18 29/03/2018 Dmitriy Sergeyevich PAVLOV 14/02/1981 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 15/01/2019 15/03/2019 6,750     17086/18 14/03/2018 Vitaliy Vladimirovich ARTAMONOV 23/02/1983 Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on numerous occasions from 26/05/2017 to 15/09/2017: overcrowding, lack of natural and electric light, inadequate temperature, no access to toilet, dirty van   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and inadequate conditions of detention during transport 09/09/2019 13/11/2019 3,095     17407/18 05/04/2018 Yan Aleksandrovich AYSIN 08/01/1983     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on four occasions from 02/11/2017 to 19/12/2017: 0.6   sq.m of personal space, lack of food, lack of access to toilet, passive smoking, overcrowding in transit detention facilities   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2019 29/03/2019 4,555     20875/18 06/04/2018 Vyacheslav Viktorovich GOVORUKHIN 31/03/1984 Kurakin Vasiliy Vasilyevich St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 10/01/2019 05/07/2019 9,000     21470/18 14/04/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV 07/08/1981     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 30/10/2018 15/01/2019 10,650     21828/18 25/04/2018 Valentin Mikhaylovich YUDICHEV 06/12/1989 Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich Kineshma Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14/01/2019 21/03/2019 5,500   25532/18 02/04/2018 Sergey Olegovich FETISOV 05/12/1983       29/10/2018 13/11/2019 7,250   26421/18 21/05/2018 Rustam Nikolayevich ZUBKOV 09/05/1991 Konakov Andrey Pavlovich St Petersburg   10/01/2019 08/04/2019 7,750   31545/18 15/06/2018 Rustam Bobonazarovich KHAKIMOV 10/02/1988   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 28/12/2017 to 10/02/2018; train, transit detention facilities; overcrowding 18/02/2019 27/01/2020 8,250   12174/19 30/01/2019 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich KAZMIN 07/06/1985 Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich Krasnoyarsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 02/10/2019 20/11/2019 5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.