CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .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 } .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. 484/14 Azamat Mukhamedovich ESKINDAROV against Russia and 4 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   December 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the 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 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities 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 (see the appended table). The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Russia in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will 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 undertake 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 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 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 a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list on the basis of the friendly settlement. 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 January 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   8 § 1 of the Convention (permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities) 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 declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     484/14 05/11/2013 Azamat Mukhamedovich ESKINDAROV 1985 Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krsanoyarsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction IK-17, Krasnoyarsk, in the period from December 2010,   Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. 25/09/2020 27/07/2020 7,800     34780/14 16/06/2014 Sergey Nikolayevich TIKHOMIROV 1978 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - absence in Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen, Tyumen Regional Court from 09/09/2013 to 24/09/2014 during hearings on claims about moral damages compensation for unjustified use of handcuffs, inadequate conditions of detention, permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 25/09/2020 22/07/2020 1,500     50021/14 25/05/2014 Vyacheslav Vyacheslavovich KONONENKO 1984 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - Poor conditions of detention in the IZ ‑ 24/1   Krasnoyarsk Region; from 13/01/2014 to 13/02/2014; IK ‑ 17   Krasnoyarsk Region; from 13/01/2012 to 13/01/2014 and from 13/02/2014 to 07/05/2015. 25/09/2020 28/07/2020 5,000     13141/15 18/02/2015 Roman Nikolayevich PENKIN 1990 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention – conditions of detention and solitary confinement in the police ward “Biyskoe”, Biysk, Altaiy Region and IZ ‑ 22/2   Biysk, Altaiy Region, for several months in 2014-2015,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - excessive length of judicial review of detention orders given by Biysk Town Court of the Altaiy Region on 15/10/2014 (appealed on 24/10/2014, examined only on 25/12/2014) and on 23/10/2014 (appealed on 27/10 and 11/11/2014, examined only on 22/01/2015),   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - continued detention on remand from 07/09/2013 to 02/09/2015 by Biysk Town Court of the Altaiy Region, Altaiy Regional Court 25/09/2020 15/07/2020 3,400     36415/15 22/12/2015 Gennadiy Vladimirovich SPIRIN 1988 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region; 04/07/2013 - 29/10/2015; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places 25/09/2020 28/07/2020 5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.