THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13852/13
Aleksandr Vladimirovich KOLESNIK against Russia
and 6 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 September 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, 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, 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 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of 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, as complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table below).
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications.
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of 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 inadequate conditions of detention, as well as where relevant, other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table below).
The applicant in application no. 16206/16 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined application no. 16206/16 and 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application no. 16206/16 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as other complaints under well-established case-law (as indicated in the appended table);
Declares the remainder of application no. 16206/16 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 October 2017.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Action Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
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)[i]
13852/13
14/01/2013
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kolesnik
30/07/1971
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
14/09/2016
28/11/2016
9,325
28694/15
21/05/2015
Maksim Sergeyevich Borodin
05/02/1981
18/03/2016
06/09/2016
4,350
16206/16
05/03/2016
Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich Orlov
05/04/1982
16/01/2017
03/03/2017
6,125
31638/16
02/06/2016
Sergey Vyacheslavovich Karnaukhov
13/10/1977
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
16/01/2017
23/03/2017
14,000
34570/16
29/04/2016
Sergey Nikolayevich Altynov
21/06/1986
16/01/2017
23/02/2017
5,250
43810/16
07/07/2016
Nikolay Aleksandrovich Vtorushin
30/10/1979
23/01/2017
03/03/2017
8,625
46447/16
22/07/2016
Vitaliy Andreyevich Shustov
06/11/1989
23/01/2017
23/03/2017
4,285
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy