THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 73048/17
Nikolay Anatolyevich BONDARENKO against Russia
and 19 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, 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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of 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 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 Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of 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 terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 (see, for example, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table) as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations.
The applicant in application no. 44291/18 complained about another period of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration. With regard to that period of detention, the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
It follows that this part of application no. 44291/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations concerning the inadequate conditions of detention as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of application no. 44291/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
73048/17
20/09/2017
Nikolay Anatolyevich BONDARENKO
15/03/1967
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
03/12/2019
7,650
8562/18
02/02/2018
Vladimir Gennadyevich KOCHESHKOV
17/12/1975
21/01/2020
26/02/2020
4,500
18545/18
29/11/2018
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich PODBORNOV
29/06/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
4,500
36300/18
16/07/2018
Andrey Yuryevich GREBNEV
24/07/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
5,400
41442/18
06/08/2018
Aleksey Vyacheslavovich YEFREMOV
22/02/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
10/03/2020
4,500
41870/18
01/10/2018
Maksim Anatolyevich VOLKOV
19/06/1995
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
6,525
41896/18
08/08/2018
Aleksandr Anatolyevich BADANIN
01/03/1972
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
7,425
42204/18
01/08/2018
Roman Alekseyevich DROBYSHEV
11/07/1977
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
4,500
44056/18
22/10/2018
Sergey Mikhaylovich DONSKOY
21/10/1980
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
5,625
44291/18
14/01/2019
Ivan Pavlovich IGNATYEV
12/02/1987
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
5,175
45668/18
28/08/2018
Stanislav Yuryevich IVANOV
28/03/1985
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
6,300
45831/18
10/09/2018
Sergey Vyacheslavovich LOYEV
20/09/1972
21/01/2020
25/02/2020
5,625
46660/18
13/09/2018
Fedor Sergeyevich NOZDRIN
04/10/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
5,175
51222/18
26/11/2018
Yuriy Nikolayevich TEREKHIN
07/11/1978
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
6,300
52406/18
24/10/2018
Yuriy Gennadyevich TARMAYEV
18/07/1960
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
24/02/2020
5,625
53065/18
15/10/2018
Grigoriy Grigoryevich IVANOV
12/06/1972
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
03/03/2020
6,075
59808/18
30/11/2018
Aleksey Vladimirovich PLOTNIKOV
17/09/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/10/2019
7,000
1399/19
05/12/2018
Nikolay Valeryevich PAVLOV
07/07/1990
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 09/10/2018 to 05/11/2018; by van, and train; overcrowding, limited access to toilet
15/10/2019
6,500
3823/19
20/08/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KHUDYAKOV
23/06/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/10/2019
5,250
25739/19
22/04/2019
Dmitriy Olegovich LONDAREV
22/04/1979
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/10/2019
5,175
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy