THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60537/17
Sergey Sergeyevich KUTKIN against Russia
and 18 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 June 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 terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants 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, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (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, as well as other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table) as covered by the unilateral declarations.
The applicants in applications nos. 8949/18 and 15466/18 complained about other periods of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declaration. With regard to those periods of detention, the applicants should avail themselves of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
It follows that this part of applications nos. 8949/18 and 15466/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 as well as the other complaints raised 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 the applications nos. 8949/18 and 15466/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 July 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 comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
60537/17
04/08/2017
Sergey Sergeyevich KUTKIN
08/03/1983
Madyudin Aleksey Grigoryevich
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
09/01/2020
4,725
79909/17
13/11/2017
Aleksey Alekseyevich KRYAZHNIKOV
27/10/1980
22/05/2018
11/07/2018
4,750
79913/17
07/11/2017
Denis Nikolayevich MALASHIN
30/04/1984
22/05/2018
03/07/2018
4,500
1884/18
11/12/2017
Viktor Aleksandrovich MAMONOV
17/03/1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
11/12/2019
4,500
3242/18
22/12/2017
Oleg Vladimirovich KONYAKHIN
25/06/1976
Butrimenko Marianna Dmitriyevna
Volgograd
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
06/12/2019
13/01/2020
4,500
7387/18
31/01/2018
Rafis Bulyakbayevich KURBANOV
24/10/1972
14/01/2019
28/03/2019
4,500
8949/18
05/02/2018
Aleksey Vladimirovich RODIONOV
05/03/1980
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
11/12/2018
5,287
11690/18
27/01/2018
Andrey Aleksandrovich RUSAKOV
19/04/1976
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
03/01/2020
4,500
12143/18
24/02/2018
Anatoliy Mikhaylovich TARASENKOV
17/04/1990
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
4,500
13646/18
28/02/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich FOMIN
22/05/1979
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
03/01/2020
4,500
15466/18
12/03/2018
Aleksandr Vladimirovich STERKHOV
18/06/1992
16/12/2019
17/02/2020
4,500
17606/18
16/03/2018
Anatoliy Valeryevich BOCHKOVSKIY
16/08/1985
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
4,500
19022/18
27/03/2018
Olesya Viktorovna PAVLOVA
28/02/1981
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
04/12/2018
4,500
23263/18
24/04/2018
Eduard Viktorovich NOVIKOV
30/09/1985
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
03/01/2020
4,500
24432/18
03/05/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich BOGOSLOVSKIY
07/03/1971
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
31/10/2019
03/01/2020
4,500
28466/18
08/06/2018
Mikhail Aleksandrovich KOZYNTSEV
15/05/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
11/03/2019
26/04/2019
5,062
36171/18
19/07/2018
Vladimir Vasilyevich ALESHKIN
24/04/1965
11/03/2019
27/05/2019
4,500
45029/18
31/08/2018
Marian Angelov PENEV
29/04/1987
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 01/06/2018 and 02/06/2018; van, train; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet
15/10/2019
5,500
50994/18
02/10/2018
Andrey Nikolayevich NAUMOV
26/08/1987
Matskevich Sergey Viktorovich
St Petersbourg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15/10/2019
03/12/2019
4,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy