CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s5442DDD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sE232948B { width:14.16%; 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 } .s84091115 { width:20.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1AAC640E { width:18.9%; 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 } .s68388C47 { width:22.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB0801E9C { width:24.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .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 } .s124F9AE2 { width:14.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B2D5D70 { width:20.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE2C1DB02 { width:18.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s28F7AF5B { width:22.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68EF20E5 { width:24.02%; 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. 4568/18 Oleg Valentinovich CHEKAREV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   July   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 application lodged on 20   December 2017, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during the period from 25   October 2011 to 1   October 2014. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case. The terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration were sent to the applicant several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the 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 application”. 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (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 inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 application in this part (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 application (Article   37   §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention from 25   October 2011 to 1   October 2014. The applicant also raised complaints under Article 3 of the Convention with regard to inadequate conditions during other periods of detention. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of the application should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article   35   §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration concerning the inadequate conditions of detention from 25   October 2011 to 1   October 2014, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 30 July 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth 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) [1] 4568/18 20/12/2017 Oleg Valentinovich CHEKAREV 05/03/1968 24/07/2018 12/09/2018 4,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.