CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.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 } .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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .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. 46657/06 Oleg Anatolyevich KHVOSTOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   April   2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 below). The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They 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 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 and other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the declarations (see the appended table below). The applicant in application no.   11873/18 also raised a complaint under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention. Having examined it, the Court 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, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of application no.   11873/18 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 insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government which were accepted by the applicants; Declares the remainder of application no.   11873/18 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   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]     46657/06 11/10/2006 Oleg Anatolyevich KHVOSTOV 1970       15/07/2019 05/10/2020 2,700     11873/18 08/02/2018 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich NABIULLIN 1987     Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - The state of Russian law precludes any legal possibility for an applicant to receive compensation for detention effected in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korshunov v.   Russia, no.   38971/06, § 62, 25   October 2007 and Govorushko v.   Russia, no.   42940/06, § 60, 25   October 2007),   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van from the detention facility (and back) to the courthouse to take part in hearings since 2015); detention in a convoy cell; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet and potable water; insufficient amount of food,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 02/10/2019 05/01/2021 9,800     30852/18 22/06/2018 Andrey Dmitriyevich NAUMOV 1992 Vasilyev Illarion Georgiyevich Moscow   20/10/2020 04/12/2020 2,030     34042/18 07/07/2018 Yekaterina Anatolyevna BURLAKOVA 1993 Uchayeva Olga Aleksandrovna Mytishchi   20/10/2020 30/11/2020 5,110     36584/18 22/07/2018 Alikhan Magometovich TEMIRKHANOV 1982 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 22   round trips between 29/01/2018 and 24/07/2018 from SIZO-1 Moscow to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow in an overcrowded van, no heating during winter period; placement in convoy cells of SIZO-1 Moscow and the Preobrazhenskiy District Court - 1 sq. m of personal space, restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow of 30/03/2018 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court 41   days later, on 10/05/2018,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in court hearings before the Moscow City Court,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - SIZO-1 Moscow from 24/11/2016 to 05/07/2019; 1.4 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 20/10/2020 07/12/2020 13,940     37094/18 20/07/2018 Artem Mikhaylovich FROLOV 1985 Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna Moskow   20/10/2020 01/12/2020 1,540     40615/18 15/08/2018 Andrey Nikolayevich CHERKASOV 1978 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transit cell, van, 29/06/2015 to 11/05/2018, 0.16 sq.m., overcrowding, passive smoking,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport and placement in a metal cage in court hearings,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during court hearings in the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic. 20/10/2020 30/11/2020 7,000     50751/18 15/10/2018 Grish Gnelovich OGANNISYAN 1987 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-on-Don   20/10/2020 05/01/2021 1,400     52565/18 09/10/2018 Yegor Nikolayevich CHERNOGOROV 1986 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention orders of the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow of 26/04/2018 and 23/07/2018 were reviewed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 29/05/2018 and 11/09/2018 respectively,     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport between IZ-4 Moscow and the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on over 100 occasions from 12/05/2017 to 08/10/2018 (overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of natural and electric light, no access to potable water and toilet, inadequate temperature),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law with regard to the inadequate conditions of his transport. 20/10/2020 07/12/2020 8,000   53816/18 06/11/2018 Vadim Pavlovich ROMANOV 1985     Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during the court hearings before the Bor Town Court leading to the conviction on 05/07/2018. 20/10/2020 05/01/2021 3,000   13429/19 01/03/2019 Sergey Alekseyevich SINEGUBOV 1976 Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich Rostov-on-Don   18/03/2020 07/12/2020 1,400   19513/19 31/03/2019 Fedor Vladimirovich KORABELNIKOV 1997 Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich Moscow   18/03/2020 11/12/2020 1,050   22834/19 16/04/2019 Aleksandr Fedorovich IVANOV 1968       18/03/2020 12/06/2020 2,000   34235/19 11/06/2019 Yelena Yuryevna ZHURAVLEVA 1968 Zhuravleva Viktoriya Vladimirovna Moscow Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - detention in IZ-77/6 and IZ-77-1 in Moscow; from 08/05/2017 to 23/05/2019; lack of fresh air, passive smoking, no ventilation, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. 10/04/2020 29/09/2020 10,650   48958/19 03/12/2019 Dmitriy Andreyevich ZAZDRAVNOV 1986     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of and procedural deficiencies in the judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was extended on 29/07/2019, he filed an appeal on 31/07/2019 and requested his presence at the appeal hearing - his appeal was considered 22   days later (on 22/08/2019) in his absence. 26/10/2020 05/01/2021 2,320   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.