THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 58935/17
Feyaz Shamilyevich DAMAYEV against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, 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 (see 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 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, 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, 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, insofar as they concerned the complaints 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 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, and other complaints under the well-established case-law, insofar as they were covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations.
The applicant in application no. 77354/17 also raised complaints about the conditions of detention during other periods not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration.
The Court has examined the application in that part 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. 77354/17 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 in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention, and other complaints under the well-established case-law, indicated in the appended table, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in the part covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations;
Declares the remainder of application no. 77354/17 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
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]
58935/17
03/08/2017
Feyaz Shamilyevich Damayev
06/01/1977
Biryukova Zhanna Aleksandrovna
Saratov
13/02/2018
09/04/2018
2,460
64302/17
07/12/2017
Yan Pavlovich Tsybulskiy
17/01/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
04/10/2018
-
4,650
74823/17
15/01/2018
Sergey Yuryevich Osipov
21/01/1984
10/09/2018
-
3,920
77354/17
08/01/2018
Roman Sergeyevich Voronin
19/07/1989
18/09/2018
-
3,555
77379/17
13/03/2018
Khusnidin Urmonovich Ergashev
13/11/1987
18/09/2018
-
5,000
77989/17
18/09/2017
Azizzhon Zokirovich Zoirov
28/08/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
15/05/2018
-
2,825
6401/18
22/01/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Valkovskiy
23/05/1991
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 30/10/2017; on 07/11/2017 - 08/11/2017; on 18/11/2017-21/11/2017 (overcrowding on a train)
17/07/2018
28/09/2018
1,200
9401/18
01/02/2018
Viktor Anatolyevich Fedchenko
24/07/1966
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - in colony no. 11 in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region until 28/10/2017, date of the applicant’s transfer to pre-trial facility
04/10/2018
26/11/2018
5,430
14491/18
13/03/2018
Aleksey Dmitriyevich Trofimov
01/09/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
-
5,750
22476/18
04/05/2018
Timur Osmanovich Yevloyev
05/02/1986
Yasman Pavel Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
29/10/2018
11/01/2019
9,750
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy