FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6749/06
Ravil Mirsaitovich KHAKIMOV
against Russia
[A1]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 February 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 Ravil Mirsaitovich Khakimov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Verkhneuralsk. He was represented before the Court by Ms O. Rabtsevich and Ms A. Mace-Ritt, lawyers practising in Yekaterinburg and Strasbourg respectively.
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, an excessive length of his pre-trial detention, and about an unreasonably long judicial review of pre‑trial detention orders.
4. On 21 September 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
A. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention
5. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-66/3 of Nizhniy Tagil in the Sverdlovsk Region 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.”
6. He also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long or that there existed no relevant and sufficient grounds for it and that the judicial review of his detention orders fell short of the requirement of speediness guaranteed by Article 5 § 4. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
...
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
7. 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 Article 5 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.
8. By the above declaration, the Russian authorities acknowledged violations of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4, as alleged by the applicant, and stated their readiness to pay him 5,317 euros as just satisfaction.
9. 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.”
10. The applicant had been invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declaration, if he so wished, but did not submit any comments.
11. 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”.
12. 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).
13. The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian pre-trial remand centres (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002‑VI), it has found a violation of Article 3 on account of similar conditions of detention in more than ninety cases raising comparable issues. Most recently, the Court has adopted a pilot judgment concerning the structural problem of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaint raised in the present application is based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.
14. The Court further notes that starting from the Kalashnikov judgment (cited above, §§ 104-121), it has held in over eighty cases against Russia that a lengthy pre-trial detention devoid of relevant and sufficient grounds was incompatible with the guarantees of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Having regard to the recurrent nature of this grievance (see Zherebin and 9 Other Applications (dec.), no. 51445/09, § 3, 13 November 2012), the Court finds it to be the subject of its well-established case-law.
15. As to the complaint under Article 5 § 4, the Court has repeatedly found a violation of that provision in cases against Russia on account of an excessively lengthy review by Russian courts of orders authorising or extending an applicant’s pre-trial detention (see, among other authorities, Pelevin v. Russia, no. 38726/05, 10 February 2011, Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, 16 December 2010 Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, 9 October 2008 and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007). Therefore, the Court considers it also to be a part of its well-established case-law.
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 the violations of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 and 4 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 pre-trial detention, the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for it or its excessive length and the length of judicial review of the orders extending it. 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, the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for it, its excessive length, as well as the excessive length of the judicial review of the orders extending that detention.
B. The other complaints
20. The applicant also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.
21. 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.
22. 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 5 §§ 3 and 4 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 the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the existence of relevant and sufficient grounds for it, its excessive length, as well as the excessive length of the judicial review of the orders extending that detention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren PrebensenKhanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
[A1]ITMARKIntroduction
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy