THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14641/12
Andrey Sergeyevich KHRUSHCHEV against Russia
and 12 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 May 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 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial 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 excessive length of pre-trial 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, 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012), as well as to the other complaints under the well-established case-law as listed in the appended table.
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 (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 (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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations.
The applicant in application no. 10851/19 also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about conditions of his pre-trial detention.
The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application no. 10851/19 should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out 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 application no. 10851/19 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial 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]
14641/12
03/10/2011
Andrey Sergeyevich KHRUSHCHEV
1969
15/07/2019
2,850
45855/14
05/06/2014
Mustafa Khusseyn MOKHAMMED KHUSSEYN
1977
26/07/2019
2,300
33061/18
13/06/2018
Romualdas S. Vitauto KLIKUNAS
1982
25/01/2019
21/03/2019
2,300
33362/18
11/07/2018
Dmitriy Igorevich MEDVEDEV
1987
Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich
Abakan
15/01/2020
25/02/2020
4,100
35993/18
10/07/2018
Anton Andreyevich GUSEV
1986
29/05/2019
2,600
40779/18
09/08/2018
Denis Sergeyevich YAKUSHIN
1984
14/10/2019
19/11/2019
2,650
41350/18
21/08/2018
Nikita Vladimirovich SAMOYLENKO
1997
29/05/2019
23/08/2019
2,600
45075/18
28/01/2019
Darkhan Askarovich ASKAROV
1993
26/07/2019
20/09/2019
3,000
49526/18
10/10/2018
Sergey Sergeyevich SERGEYEV
1979
Frolov Andrey Vladimirovich
Volgograd
15/07/2019
13/09/2019
3,850
54160/18
31/08/2018
Sergey Olegovich FETISOV
1983
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decision of 21/03/2018 was examined on appeal on 26/04/2018
03/07/2019
3,250
4711/19
22/03/2019
Vadim Nikolayevich ZAVITAYEV
1994
02/10/2019
4,200
8212/19
19/01/2019
Aleksandr Viktorovich FROLOV
1984
Mazitov Marat Farukovich
Moscow
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van; 30/08/2018 - 29/12/2018 (numerous occasions of transport to the court); overcrowding - proceedings are still pending.
02/10/2019
10/12/2019
2,600
10851/19
13/02/2019
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ARKHIPENKO
1974
02/10/2019
10/12/2019
3,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy