THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20637/18
Anton Mikhaylovich BANNIKOV
against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a remand prison. They further requested the Court to strike out the relevant part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention:
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-52/1 in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. They further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
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 an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 inadequate conditions of detention in a remand prison (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (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 relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list as regards in the part covered by the unilateral declaration of the Government.
The applicant also raised other complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court has examined the application 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
20637/18
12/04/2018
Anton Mikhaylovich BANNIKOV
1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
10/01/2019
27/03/2019
6,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant