CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .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 } .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. 37077/18 Irina Aleksandrovna ROMANOVSKAYA against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   January 2021 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 (see the appended table). 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 (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 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. 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 11 February 2021.   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]     37077/18 23/07/2018 Irina Aleksandrovna ROMANOVSKAYA 1961 Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna Rostov-on-Don Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 27/12/2017 was only examined by the appeal court on 24/01/2018. 20/10/2020 23/11/2020 5,050     33326/19 11/06/2019 Rustam Gadzhiumarovich GADZHIYEV 1986 Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - inhuman conditions of detention in IZ-1 Astrakhan Region during 01/03/2018 - 04/06/2019 with 2.6 m²/inmate, inadequate ventilation, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, constant electric light, toilet in 1 ‑ 2   m. from dinner table, exercise yard of 15-20 sq..m. for 8 inmates, no or restricted access to shower;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport by prison vans from the detention facility to the court houses; length of each trip up to 2 hours; overcrowding; extremely hot in summer; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air; numerous occasions of transport in the period from 01/03/2018 to 01/03/2019;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.   10/04/2020 15/07/2020 8,200     48277/19 26/08/2019 Nikita Sergeyevich MURASHEV 1992       10/04/2020 16/07/2020 3,100     48669/19 03/09/2019 Tatyana Mikhaylovna SKVORTSOVA 1994 Ivanov Denis Aleksandrovich Yelabuga Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - detention in IZ-6 Moscow from 22/11/2018 to 18/04/2019; less than 3 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air;   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement of the applicant in a metal cage during hearings in the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow between 24/12/2018 and 18/04/2019. 10/04/2020 16/07/2020 3,960     50489/19 26/08/2019 Dmitriy Petrovich TSATSARIN 1982       20/10/2020 19/11/2020 3,010     10175/20 23/01/2020 Dinar Maratovich ISLAMOV 1986       20/10/2020 01/12/2020 5,180   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.