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 } .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 } .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 } .sC085C23 { width:3.78%; 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 } .s7D765F8C { width:8.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDACD9B59 { width:10.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2334154C { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCC545E37 { width:30.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1A810B9D { width:8.42%; 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 } .sE65610BE { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4F1AA88F { width:18.56%; 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 } .sC26FB1C { width:3.78%; 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 } .s284B66B0 { width:8.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD844734F { width:10.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s143460DA { width:10.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEABCC374 { width:30.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9A55B77 { width:8.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s98B497B1 { width:9.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7792C3D1 { width:18.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40821/14 Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZMIN against Russia and 8 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, 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 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 Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention 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 were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 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 applicants wish the examination of the cases 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications 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 applications in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 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 (listed in the appended table). In application no. 57054/18 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 §   4 of the Convention. 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 matter complained of is within its competence, it 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. 57054/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations 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 of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of application no. 57054/18 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 comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     40821/14 23/05/2014 Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZMIN 1988     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal decision taken on 11/12/2014 regarding the detention order of 31/07/2014. 10/06/2020   12,000     7860/18 23/01/2018 Marina Yevgenyevna BUKHANTSEVA 1967       18/03/2020   1,150     36467/18 23/07/2018 Yevgeniy Vitalyevich POPOV 1982     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and in respect of inadequate conditions of transport and his placement in a metal cage in court hearings,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the St   Petersburg City Court of 08/06/2018 was not decided speedily,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport and detention in convoy transit cells during the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in an overcrowded van on many occasions; lack of ventilation, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the St   Petersburg City Court, during the criminal proceedings against the applicant,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - conditions of detention in IZ-47/4 St Petersburg from 14/12/2016 to 26/11/2018. 10/04/2020 31/07/2020 14,500     47356/18 20/09/2018 Galina Nikolayevna VASYANOVICH 1965 Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich Rostov-on-Don Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow delivered on 04/05/2018 was examined only on 04/07/2018 by the Moscow City Court on appeal 10/06/2020 04/08/2020 3,090     57054/18 09/01/2019 Viktor Gennadyevich KOTELNIKOV 1975       18/03/2020 07/07/2020 1,300     34642/19 26/06/2019 Viktoriya Viktorovna BRIL 1974 Zykov Andrey Leonidovich Moscow   18/03/2020 07/07/2020 1,200     37184/19 01/07/2019 Sergey Valeryevich CHULKIN 1974 Oreshnikova Yelena Aleksandrovna Moscow Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - extension on 05/03/2019 by the Presnenskiy District Court, appeal on 01/04/2019 by the Moscow City Court 10/04/2020 18/08/2020 1,700     50808/19 13/09/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV 1970 Kubyshkin Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Moscow   18/03/2020   1,000     63878/19 28/11/2019 Denis Yevgenyevich BELAVTSEV 1979       10/06/2020   1,050   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant