THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8881/18
Artem Ivanovich BURMISTROV against Russia
and 11 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 August 2019 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 during transport 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 during transport. 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 Government offered a single unilateral declaration in respect of the two applications from Mr Pandi, applications nos. 29711/18 and 33099/18, acknowledging a violation of both Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of the episodes of transport described in those applications and offering 1,000 euros in total.
The amounts indicated by the Government in the unilateral declarations, as listed in the appended table, 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 were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations 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 during transport as well as the other complaints under the well-established case‑law, as listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012).
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 insofar as covered by the Government’s 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 in that part (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 during transport and the other complaints under the well-established case‑law, as set out in the Government’s unilateral declarations.
The applicant in application no. 8881/18 also complained about other instances of transport under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court has examined these complaints 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 application no. 8881/18 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 relating to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see 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. 8881/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)
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)[i]
8881/18
11/01/2018
Artem Ivanovich Burmistrov
17/06/1989
26/09/2018
-
1,300
12220/18
07/02/2018
Andrey Aleksandrovich Chebotarev
26/11/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
19/09/2018
09/11/2018
1,000
17500/18
26/03/2018
Oleg Vladimirovich Leshchev
13/06/1960
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
-
1,000
17696/18
21/03/2018
Nikolay Viktorovich Yemelin
13/04/1984
09/10/2018
26/11/2018
1,000
17750/18
22/03/2018
Igor Nikolayevich Ronzhin
21/06/1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
27/11/2018
1,000
18184/18
18/03/2018
Anonymat
Azat Zaydyatovich Shaydullov
25/11/1967
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
16/10/2018
10/01/2019
1,000
21261/18
12/04/2018
Dmitriy Vladimirovich Zabrodtskiy
03/06/1980
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
16/10/2018
21/01/2019
1,000
23362/18
24/04/2018
Andrey Andreyevich Poturvay
08/09/1984
16/10/2018
22/01/2019
1,000
24625/18
04/05/2018
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Smirnov
25/05/1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
16/10/2018
22/01/2019
1,000
29711/18
21/05/2018
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Pandi
23/07/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
22/01/2019
-
1,000, covering both application no. 29711/18 and no. 33099/18
33099/18
28/06/2018
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Pandi
23/07/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
22/01/2019
-
See the award under application no. 29711/18 above
31556/18
13/06/2018
Rovlan Shakhzada-ogly Farzaliyev
13/02/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
29/01/2019
30/04/2019
1,000
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy