FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7427/06
Mikhail Sergeyevich DIMOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 23 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 January 2006,
Having regard to the declaration 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
1. The applicant, Mr Mikhail Sergeyevich Dimov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1970 and lived in Nizhniy Tagil in the Sverdlovsk Region before his conviction.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained, among other matters, about poor conditions of his detention in a remand prison and an allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings against him.
4. On 17 June 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
5. By letter of 14 March 2011, the applicant informed the Court as follows:
“Officials of the Russian Federation summonsed me to a police department for an interview about my application to the European Court of Human Rights.
From the questions they asked, I understood that the Russian Federation [authorities] attempted to put pressure on me and to compel me to give up my claims lodged with the international court.
...
The Russian officials told me that [the application] had no prospects of success in the European Court [of Human Rights].”
6. On 30 March 2011 the Court requested the Government to submit further observations on whether, in the light of the information contained in the above letter, there had been a hindrance by the State to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention. In their letter of 27 April 2011, the Government submitted that the applicant neither specified the name of the police office, police officers or any other persons who allegedly influenced him, nor dates or approximate period of time when he underwent such influence. Therefore, they deem the applicant’s complaints incredible and speculative in nature.
THE LAW
A. The complaints concerning inhuman or degrading conditions of detention and an excessive length of the criminal proceedings
7. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-66/1 of Yekaterinburg amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
8. He further complained that the criminal proceedings against him, which had lasted for more than seven years, had been excessively long in breach of the “reasonable time” guarantee in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
9. By letter submitted on 17 January 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
10. By the above declaration, the Russian authorities acknowledged violations of Articles 3 and 6 § 1, as alleged by the applicant, and stated their readiness to pay him 20,125 euros as just satisfaction.
11. The remainder of the declaration read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
12. The applicant had been invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declaration, if he so wished, but did not submit any comments.
13. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.
14. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
15. The Court recalls that it has frequently found violations of Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases against Russia on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of applicants’ pre-trial detention and an excessive length of criminal proceedings against them (see, among other authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, Aleksandr Novikov v. Russia, no. 7087/04, 11 July 2013, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, 23 April 2009 and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002‑VI). It follows that the complaints raised in the present application are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.
16. Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicant and explicitly acknowledged that the conditions of his detention had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and that the overall length of the proceedings fell short of the guarantees of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
17. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant, the Government have undertaken to pay him an amount of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. Even if that amount did not exactly correspond to the awards made by the Court in similar cases, what is important is that the proposed sum is not unreasonable in comparison with them (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 105, ECHR 2006‑V). The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of that sum within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.
18. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this case in the parts concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention and the excessive length of the proceedings. As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgments concerning the same issues, the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of these parts of the case. In any event, the Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the application to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).
19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.
B. The alleged complaint under Article 34 of the Convention
20. As regards the applicant’s allegation about the hindrance of his right to individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, the Court observes that no detail was provided in that respect, such as the date of the interview with the Russian officials or the name of the police station where it had taken place. The Court considers that claim to be unsubstantiated and rejects it pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. The other complaints
21. The applicant raised a number of other complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention.
22. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of the application.
23. It follows that the application in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declaration concerning the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention, and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in so far as it concerned the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of pre-trial detention and an excessive length of the criminal proceedings;
Holds that the State has not failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren PrebensenKhanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy