THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46657/06
Oleg Anatolyevich KHVOSTOV against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 April 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
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 (see the appended table below).
The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They 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 informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations.
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 Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications.
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 other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the declarations (see the appended table below).
The applicant in application no. 11873/18 also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Having examined it, the Court 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, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of application no. 11873/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government which were accepted by the applicants;
Declares the remainder of application no. 11873/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 29 April 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya MaradudinaDarian Pavli
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
Year 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 acceptance
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
46657/06
11/10/2006
Oleg Anatolyevich KHVOSTOV
1970
15/07/2019
05/10/2020
2,700
11873/18
08/02/2018
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich NABIULLIN
1987
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - The state of Russian law precludes any legal possibility for an applicant to receive compensation for detention effected in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 62, 25 October 2007 and Govorushko v. Russia, no. 42940/06, § 60, 25 October 2007),
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van from the detention facility (and back) to the courthouse to take part in hearings since 2015); detention in a convoy cell; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet and potable water; insufficient amount of food,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.
02/10/2019
05/01/2021
9,800
30852/18
22/06/2018
Andrey Dmitriyevich NAUMOV
1992
Vasilyev Illarion Georgiyevich
Moscow
20/10/2020
04/12/2020
2,030
34042/18
07/07/2018
Yekaterina Anatolyevna BURLAKOVA
1993
Uchayeva Olga Aleksandrovna
Mytishchi
20/10/2020
30/11/2020
5,110
36584/18
22/07/2018
Alikhan Magometovich TEMIRKHANOV
1982
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 22 round trips between 29/01/2018 and 24/07/2018 from SIZO-1 Moscow to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow in an overcrowded van, no heating during winter period; placement in convoy cells of SIZO-1 Moscow and the Preobrazhenskiy District Court - 1 sq. m of personal space, restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow of 30/03/2018 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court 41 days later, on 10/05/2018,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in court hearings before the Moscow City Court,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - SIZO-1 Moscow from 24/11/2016 to 05/07/2019; 1.4 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
20/10/2020
07/12/2020
13,940
37094/18
20/07/2018
Artem Mikhaylovich FROLOV
1985
Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna
Moskow
20/10/2020
01/12/2020
1,540
40615/18
15/08/2018
Andrey Nikolayevich CHERKASOV
1978
Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transit cell, van, 29/06/2015 to 11/05/2018, 0.16 sq.m., overcrowding, passive smoking,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport and placement in a metal cage in court hearings,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during court hearings in the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic.
20/10/2020
30/11/2020
7,000
50751/18
15/10/2018
Grish Gnelovich OGANNISYAN
1987
Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich
Rostov-on-Don
20/10/2020
05/01/2021
1,400
52565/18
09/10/2018
Yegor Nikolayevich CHERNOGOROV
1986
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention orders of the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow of 26/04/2018 and 23/07/2018 were reviewed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 29/05/2018 and 11/09/2018 respectively,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport between IZ-4 Moscow and the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on over 100 occasions from 12/05/2017 to 08/10/2018 (overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of natural and electric light, no access to potable water and toilet, inadequate temperature),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law with regard to the inadequate conditions of his transport.
20/10/2020
07/12/2020
8,000
53816/18
06/11/2018
Vadim Pavlovich ROMANOV
1985
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant was placed in a metal cage during the court hearings before the Bor Town Court leading to the conviction on 05/07/2018.
20/10/2020
05/01/2021
3,000
13429/19
01/03/2019
Sergey Alekseyevich SINEGUBOV
1976
Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich
Rostov-on-Don
18/03/2020
07/12/2020
1,400
19513/19
31/03/2019
Fedor Vladimirovich KORABELNIKOV
1997
Dvornikov Anton Nikolayevich
Moscow
18/03/2020
11/12/2020
1,050
22834/19
16/04/2019
Aleksandr Fedorovich IVANOV
1968
18/03/2020
12/06/2020
2,000
34235/19
11/06/2019
Yelena Yuryevna ZHURAVLEVA
1968
Zhuravleva Viktoriya Vladimirovna
Moscow
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - detention in IZ-77/6 and IZ-77-1 in Moscow; from 08/05/2017 to 23/05/2019; lack of fresh air, passive smoking, no ventilation, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.
10/04/2020
29/09/2020
10,650
48958/19
03/12/2019
Dmitriy Andreyevich ZAZDRAVNOV
1986
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of and procedural deficiencies in the judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was extended on 29/07/2019, he filed an appeal on 31/07/2019 and requested his presence at the appeal hearing - his appeal was considered 22 days later (on 22/08/2019) in his absence.
26/10/2020
05/01/2021
2,320
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy