CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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. 52405/19 Gurgen Aleksiyevich ANDREASYAN against Russia and 14 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 May 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. 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 that part. 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, in the part covered by the declarations, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the declarations (see appended table below). Mr Shavlokhov in application no.   64657/19 also raised another complaint under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention in respect of his detention from 15   June 2016 to 1   November 2017. The Court has examined the complaint 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of application no.   64657/19 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, in the part covered by the declarations, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table below); Declares the remainder of application no.   64657/19 inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 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]     52405/19 03/10/2019 Gurgen Aleksiyevich ANDREASYAN 1999 Semiguzova Alana Vladimirovna Chita   10/04/2020 09/09/2020 900     59630/19 05/11/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOVALENKO 1992 Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich Moscow Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - complaint of 12/04/2019 was examined by the Moscow City Court, 1 month and 8 days later, on 20/05/2019 20/10/2020 11/12/2020 2,040     60187/19 06/11/2019 Vladimir Aleksandrovich PLETUKHOV 1985 Batyants Samvel Sergeyevich Nizhniy Novgorod   26/10/2020 16/12/2020 910     64657/19 03/12/2019 Vadim Khazbiyevich SHAVLOKHOV 1976 Naumov Dmitriy Valeryevich Volgograd Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms. Detention in a metal cage on multiple occasions during the detention hearings at the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow; from 10/07/2019 until 27/11/2019 10/06/2020 04/08/2020 1,210     1592/20 06/12/2019 Roman Vladimirovich BUZIN 1987 Katsko Vitaliy Nikolayevich Krasnodar Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage in court hearings before the Gulkevichskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region; and the Krasnodar Regional Court 26/10/2020 04/01/2021 5,000     6905/20 22/01/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich BATRAKOV 1999 Subocheva Nazhiya Dzhafyarovna Penza   26/10/2020 04/03/2021 1,260     9967/20 31/01/2020 Ramis Railevich FAYZULLIN 1995     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on numerous occasions - van (SIZO-5 Chistopol Tatarstan Republic   - IVS Naberezhnyye Chelny - Naberazhnyye Chelny Town Court); 09/09/2019 – no information as to the end date ; overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet   20/10/2020 07/12/2020 7,000     11056/20 29/01/2020 Vladimir Valeryevich YEGOROV 1976 Gak Irina Vladimirovna Rostov-on-Don   20/10/2020 05/01/2021 1,610     11718/20 17/02/2020 Aleksey Yuryevich YEVDOKIMOV 1990       26/10/2020 01/02/2021 2,520   15460/20 20/03/2020 Igor Sergeyevich BUSHUYEV 1985 Yevsyunin Aleksey Konstantinovich Moscow   26/10/2020 13/01/2021 2,240   22165/20 24/04/2020 Konstantin Aleksandrovich MAYSNER 1986 Chelokhsayev Timur Adamovich Krasnodar Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in court hearings since 17/07/2018 (Krasnodar Regional Court, Gulkevichskiy District Court of Krasnodar Region); the latest event reported to the Court was on 03/08/2020 (guilty verdict delivered by the court at first level of jurisdiction) 28/01/2021 04/03/2021 3,800   22848/20 30/04/2020 Ivan Igorevich SMOLNIKOV 1982     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal against the decision of 08/07/2019 lodged on 16/07/2019 was considered on 22/08/2019 28/01/2021 02/03/2021 4,420   26256/20 22/05/2020 Yuriy Vladimirovich APOLLONOV 1984 Safina Alina Ildusovna Kazan   28/01/2021 01/03/2021 3,640   27733/20 13/04/2020 Maksim Vitalyevich GRIGORENKO 1978       28/01/2021 11/03/2021 7,140   32784/20 15/07/2020 Vladislav SIVIRIN 1982 Knyazev Aleksandr Vladimirovich Moscow   21/01/2021 08/03/2021 4,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.