THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77369/17
Roman Sergeyevich KIRILLOV against Russia
and 12 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in applications nos. 17086/18 and 12174/19,
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 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 (see the appended table). 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 declarations 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 the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and listed in the appended table.
In application no. 17086/18 the applicant also complained about another period of detention in inadequate conditions.
The Court has examined this complaint 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, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application no. 17086/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
In application no. 12174/19 the applicant also complained under Article 5 § 3 about the length of his pre-trial detention.
The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of the status of a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999‑VI).
In the present case, the applicant was in custody from 17 August 2017 until 27 July 2018 when the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in view of the absence of criminal conduct. On 13 August 2019 the domestic court awarded the applicant compensation, stating that he had been unlawfully prosecuted and detained for a lengthy period. The Court therefore notes that the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant’s rights were violated, inter alia, in view of his pre-trial detention.
The Court notes that the applicant was further awarded RUB 300,000 (approximately 4,000 euros) for his suffering. That sum exceeds the amount of compensation usualy awarded by the Court in similar cases and can be considered as constituting redress for the violation of the Convention right alleged by him in the present application (see Bolshakova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 50952/11, 6 December 2016).
It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and that his application in this part must be rejected pursuant to 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 and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law and covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (see the appended table);
Declares the remainder of applications nos. 17086/18 and 12174/19 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020.
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
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]
77369/17
10/05/2018
Roman Sergeyevich KIRILLOV
28/10/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/01/2019
10/09/2019
1,365
9313/18
10/05/2018
Viktor Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV
12/04/1991
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
25/01/2019
03/04/2019
5,500
11645/18
22/02/2018
Maksim Nikolayevich BABAKOV
03/03/1985
12/03/2019
28/01/2020
1,000
15573/18
29/03/2018
Dmitriy Sergeyevich PAVLOV
14/02/1981
Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/01/2019
15/03/2019
6,750
17086/18
14/03/2018
Vitaliy Vladimirovich ARTAMONOV
23/02/1983
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on numerous occasions from 26/05/2017 to 15/09/2017: overcrowding, lack of natural and electric light, inadequate temperature, no access to toilet, dirty van
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and inadequate conditions of detention during transport
09/09/2019
13/11/2019
3,095
17407/18
05/04/2018
Yan Aleksandrovich AYSIN
08/01/1983
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on four occasions from 02/11/2017 to 19/12/2017: 0.6 sq.m of personal space, lack of food, lack of access to toilet, passive smoking, overcrowding in transit detention facilities
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2019
29/03/2019
4,555
20875/18
06/04/2018
Vyacheslav Viktorovich GOVORUKHIN
31/03/1984
Kurakin Vasiliy Vasilyevich
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
10/01/2019
05/07/2019
9,000
21470/18
14/04/2018
Aleksey Sergeyevich SMIRNOV
07/08/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
30/10/2018
15/01/2019
10,650
21828/18
25/04/2018
Valentin Mikhaylovich YUDICHEV
06/12/1989
Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich
Kineshma
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2019
21/03/2019
5,500
25532/18
02/04/2018
Sergey Olegovich FETISOV
05/12/1983
29/10/2018
13/11/2019
7,250
26421/18
21/05/2018
Rustam Nikolayevich ZUBKOV
09/05/1991
Konakov Andrey Pavlovich
St Petersburg
10/01/2019
08/04/2019
7,750
31545/18
15/06/2018
Rustam Bobonazarovich KHAKIMOV
10/02/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 28/12/2017 to 10/02/2018; train, transit detention facilities; overcrowding
18/02/2019
27/01/2020
8,250
12174/19
30/01/2019
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich KAZMIN
07/06/1985
Vasin Vladimir Valeryevich
Krasnoyarsk
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
02/10/2019
20/11/2019
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy