THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28740/07
Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOCHEKOV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, 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 case no. 16323/11, 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 Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral 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 applications.”
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 the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the 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) and the excessive delays in examination of detention orders (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/09, 22 May 2012).
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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 February 2017.
Karen ReidHelena Jäderblom
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[i]
Proposed amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant; for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)
28740/07
21/05/2007
Dmitriy Nikolayevich KOCHEKOV
25/11/1972
13/07/2016
4,100
3,500
48047/07
30/08/2007
Oleg Gennadyevich IVANOV
01/08/1967
Ovchinnikov Oleg Anatolyevich
Moscou
13/07/2016
1,400
1,200
34657/08
19/02/2008
Anton Vyacheslavovich SOROKIN
01/06/1983
Zaramenskiy Andrey Igorevich
Yaroslavl
13/07/2016
3,950
3,400
69109/10
03/11/2010
Nikolay Nikolayevich KNYSHOV
17/06/1976
13/07/2016
900
1,000
16323/11
14/02/2011
Suleyman Akhmedovich OSMANOV
01/06/1989
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - (1) Delayed examination of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 11/01/2011 (2) Delayed examination of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 11/02/2011
13/07/2016
1,650
1,300
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy