THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48623/17
Sergey Aleksandrovich GORODENSKIY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2017,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning his absence from civil proceedings and under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about poor conditions of detention in the colony and lack of an effective remedy to complain about it were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged the applicant’s absence from civil proceedings. They further acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in the colony in conditions in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective remedy for that complaint in violation of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
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 applicant wishes the examination of the case 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 applicant’s absence from civil proceedings (see, for example, Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 16 February 2016), as well as relating to the complaints about the conditions of detention in colonies (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
The Court further notes that the applicant did not submit any comments on the Government’s declaration. He must therefore be presumed to have taken cognisance of its terms and to have no objections to them. Accordingly, the Court finds that payment of the specified amount constitutes adequate redress in the particular situation of the applicant. In the light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the issue, 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine) (see, for similar reasoning, Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 23, 20 March 2018).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 application out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(applicant’s absence from civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
48623/17
22/06/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich GORODENSKIY
1980
03/12/2019
9,450
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy