THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4076/14
Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV against Russia
and 19 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 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.
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 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 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 inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 inadequate conditions of 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. 4743/18 also complained about another period of his detention in poor conditions. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government’s objection concerning the six-month time-limit related to that complaint, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint about conditions of his detention between 10 June 2007 and 4 March 2014 was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with 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 inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as listed 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. 4743/18 inadmissible.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
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]
4076/14
23/12/2013
Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV
1964
Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - The applicant served his sentence in IK-30 Perm Region which was several thousand km away from his family members who lived in the Rostov Region.
28/06/2019
5,800
69191/17
04/09/2017
Maksim Ivanovich KAYUSHKIN
1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
03/12/2019
7,650
4289/18
15/05/2018
Yevgeniy Valeriyevich REYKO
1985
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
16/12/2019
7,875
4743/18
29/03/2018
Vasiliy Vladimirovich ANANIN
1974
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
03/12/2019
5,625
11817/18
07/11/2018
Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV
1969
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2020
4,500
29908/18
06/08/2018
Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich YEMELYANOV
1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2020
7,200
40333/18
23/07/2018
Viktor Vasilyevich LATYSHEV
1980
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
5,400
47417/18
18/09/2018
Aleksandr Vladislavovich BOGDANOV
1977
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transport from 27/03/2018 to 28/03/2018 and 27/05/2018, train and van, severe overcrowding; restricted access to toilet.
15/10/2019
10/12/2019
8,000
47817/18
24/09/2018
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich POLYAKOV
1985
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
04/12/2019
5,850
53378/18
24/10/2018
Anton Nikolayevich SERGIYEVICH
1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
4,500
54902/18
14/01/2019
Oleg Ravilyevich GALEYEV
1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2020
6,300
58015/18
19/11/2018
Vladislav Yevgenyevich MAKSIMOV
1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
6,250
2980/19
18/12/2018
Aleksey Petrovich GALKIN
1977
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2020
5,850
4473/19
27/12/2018
Aleksey Anatolyevich SEMENOV
1968
15/10/2019
19/11/2019
6,250
5052/19
21/12/2018
Aleksandr Viktorovich PAKHMUTOV
1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2020
4,500
5061/19
26/12/2018
Aleksandr Andreyevich KHASHCHEV
1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
28/01/2020
6,250
5875/19
27/12/2018
Petr Viktorovich FILIPPOVSKIY
1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
03/12/2019
4,500
8404/19
25/01/2019
Radik Renatovich AKHMETOV
1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
21/01/2020
09/03/2020
4,500
18046/19
14/03/2019
Dmitriy Anatolyevich MAKOVETSKIY
1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
05/12/2019
4,950
28352/19
07/05/2019
Denis Nikolayevich SHAROV
1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/10/2019
05/12/2019
4,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy