CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 novembre 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 } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; 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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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. 30103/16 Ilgiz Railyevich YAKHIN against Russia and 14 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, 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 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 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 excessive length of pre-trial 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 the part covered by the parties’ agreement. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law as listed in the appended table and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. The applicants in applications nos. 30103/16, 54310/18 and 54188/19 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined these 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, they 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 applications nos. 30103/16, 54310/18 and 54188/19 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table; Declares the remainder of applications nos. 30103/16, 54310/18 and 54188/19 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   Acting 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’s name Year 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]     30103/16 17/05/2016 Ilgiz Railyevich YAKHIN 1992     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement of the applicant in a metal cage during hearings before the Nefteyuganskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Region and before the Khanty-Mansy Regional Court between 24/04/2013 to 17/02/2016. 10/06/2020 06/08/2020 5,060     54310/18 10/11/2018 Pavel Vladimirovich YEMELYANENKO 1989 Osipovich Viktor Viktorovich Moscow   18/03/2020 01/07/2020 1,450     13449/19 20/02/2019 Vasiliy Vladimirovich BELIKOV 1986     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - excessive length of judicial review of the detention orders dated 26/06/2018 (upheld on 22/08/2018) and 09/10/2018 (upheld on 05/12/2018); and 19/03/2019 (upheld on 08/05/2019). 10/04/2020 21/07/2020 4,300     18685/19 17/06/2019 Erik Iskoyevich MIRZOYAN 1992     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport on a number of occasions in prison vans and detention transit cells from 09/02/2018 to 18/04/2019; overcrowding, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell. 18/03/2020 11/05/2020 2,200     26991/19 19/03/2019 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PETROV 1980           18/03/2020 23/06/2020 2,600     32713/19 11/06/2019 Yuriy Yuryevich YANCHENKO 1980 Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich Astrakhan Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - confinement in a metal cage in the course of the hearings in the Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan and Astrakhan Regional Court between 05/08/2017 - 11/04/2019;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - inhuman conditions of detention in IZ-1 Astrakhan Region between 07/08/2017-22/05/2019 (no ventilation, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water). 10/04/2020 21/08/2020 10,100     49573/19 06/09/2019 Konstantin Nikolayevich DANILOCHKIN 1990 Chumak Nikita Vladimirovich Moscow   10/06/2020 11/08/2020 2,240     50792/19 16/09/2019 Nina Aleksandrovna SUSLOVA 1981 Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich Krasnodar Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in the hearings before the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar and Krasnodar Regional Court; on numerous occasions since 08/06/2019. 10/04/2020 06/07/2020 1,600     52686/19 27/09/2019 Sergey Yuryevich MIRONOV 1989 Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport in prison vans and transit cells on a number of occasions from 28/04/2017 to 28/03/2019; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet;   Art. 13 - lack of effective remedy against placement in metal cages and inadequate conditions of transportation;     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on a number of occasions in court hearings before the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg and before the St Petersburg City Court, including by way of video conference, in the period from 28/04/2017 to 24/09/2019. 10/04/2020 18/09/2020 5,000   53457/19 02/10/2019 Denis Viktorovich KOLESNIKOV 1975       10/06/2020 27/07/2020 1,680   54188/19 07/10/2019 Dmitriy Igorevich DEDOVICH 1986 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - detention in IZ-77/4 Moscow from 15/03/2018 to 09/12/2019;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and detention in a transit cell from 26/01/2017on numerous occasions and until 09/12/2019; 0.3 m² per inmate;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 18/02/2019, lodged on 20/02/2019, was examined on 11/04/2019 (44 days later). The applicant’s appeal against the extension order of 15/04/2019, lodged on 18/04/2019, was examined on 30/05/2019 (35 days later). 10/04/2020 23/07/2020 12,350   56695/19 10/10/2019 Artem Ruslanovich BARKIN 1984 Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport on numerous occasions during the court proceedings until 17/04/2019 by van and detention in convoy cell, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air;   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during court hearings before the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow and Moscow City Court (by way of videoconference). 10/04/2020 22/07/2020 4,050   57995/19 28/10/2019 Vladimir Aleksandrovich ABRAMOV 1992       Sharin Sergey Valeryevich Arkhangelsk   10/06/2020 20/08/2020 2,170   60449/19 13/11/2019 Anton Pavlovich SAMOYLOV 1972 Karakasiyan Artem Vaniyanovich Moskva Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms. Detention in a metal cage on multiple occasions during the appellate hearings held at the Moscow City Court through videoconference. 10/06/2020 30/07/2020 2,000   64578/19 28/11/2019 Ruslan Rastemovich USMANOV 1991       10/06/2020 19/08/2020 3,920   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.