THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41234/13
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV against Russia
and 20 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 June 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 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, 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 (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 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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and listed in the appended table.
Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (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 the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 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
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 comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
41234/13
03/06/2013
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV
26/08/1971
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport of the applicant on 19/08/2013 in an overcrowded van (0.2 sq m. of personal space) without ventilation; and his subsequent detention in a transit cell in unsanitary conditions,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport
12/09/2016
4,500
57248/15
11/11/2015
Artur Rinatovich CHALDAYEV
06/08/1986
Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna
Saransk
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was kept in a metal cage during the trial proceedings which ended on 14/05/2015 (date of verdict),
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in an overcrowded van on numerous occasions in the period from 10/06/2014 to 18/05/2015
16/01/2018
05/04/2018
8,700
18949/17
18/02/2017
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KAZAMAROV
03/08/1978
Zimirev Yevgeniy Ivanovich
Nizhnekamsk
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of detention in a transit cell in the court building on the days of the hearings until 01/11/2016,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/09/2017
2,000
72031/17
24/09/2017
Ismoildzhon Nosirovich SULAYMONOV
13/02/1994
Seleznev Yevgeniy Anatolyevich
Moscow
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
03/04/2018
17/05/2018
5,500
75886/17
20/09/2017
Nikolay Vasilyevich ROMANYUK
06/05/1956
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
11/06/2018
5,250
80496/17
10/11/2017
Timur Sergeyevich TROTSENKO
11/03/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 11/07/2017
15/05/2018
20/07/2018
3,000
80781/17
27/11/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich RASTOPCHIN
15/05/1984
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport between the detention facilities and courts and detention in transit cells from October 2010 to July 2017,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport
15/05/2018
15,000
84530/17
19/09/2017
Ramazan Abdulmutalibovich ABDULLAYEV
25/01/1996
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Poor conditions of transport by van and train on 12/09/2017-13/09/2017 and in a van on 18/09/2017, as well as detention in transit cells of
IZ-1 of the Nizhniy Novgorod
16/07/2018
26/09/2018
2,100
84578/17
09/12/2017
Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN
12/05/1962
Timireva Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Return journeys on 30/08/2017, 26/10/2017 and 24/11/2017 between IZ-1 of Moscow and Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow: 0.5 sq.m of personal space, no access to toilet, inadequate temperature, insufficient seats for everybody.,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
11/06/2018
28/06/2018
5,285
4278/18
12/12/2017
Aleksandr Leonidovich ANDREYEV
21/03/1976
17/07/2018
25/09/2018
2,095
5693/18
29/12/2017
Sergey Vladimirovich SUKHOV
18/04/1980
Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
18/09/2018
20/11/2018
2,095
8241/18
05/01/2018
Ivan Vladimirovich KAPITONOV
10/03/1971
Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich
St Petersburg
18/09/2018
05/12/2018
1,750
10675/18
14/06/2018
Viktor Konstantinovich MARTSENYUK
18/06/1987
25/01/2019
2,825
13685/18
05/03/2018
Aleksandr Viktorovich VORONOV
04/01/1982
12/03/2019
15/05/2019
7,875
14467/18
14/03/2018
Roman Aleksandrovich IVANKIN
30/12/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
09/01/2019
26/03/2019
9,500
27168/18
14/05/2018
Viktor Konstantinovich SOLOVYEV
07/08/1958
25/01/2019
9,000
29949/18
07/06/2018
Roman Borisovich NEVELSKIY
07/01/1980
Kuznetsov Aleksey Alekseyevich
St Petersburg
25/01/2019
3,555
30074/18
14/06/2018
Dmitriy Sergeyevich SENKIN
07/01/1979
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
25/01/2019
27/03/2019
3,528
30367/18
26/05/2018
Pavel Valeryevich GRACHEV
13/04/1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
12/03/2019
6,500
30803/18
14/06/2018
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich BARANOV
10/05/1962
18/02/2019
13/05/2019
4,950
36454/18
23/07/2018
Mikhail Petrovich SETSKO
21/05/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
12/03/2019
30/04/2019
6,150
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy