THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40821/14
Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZMIN against Russia
and 8 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, 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 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 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, 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 in this part (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 (see 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case‑law (listed in the appended table).
In application no. 57054/18 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
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 matter complained of is within its competence, it 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. 57054/18 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as 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. 57054/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year 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]
40821/14
23/05/2014
Sergey Aleksandrovich KUZMIN
1988
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Appeal decision taken on 11/12/2014 regarding the detention order of 31/07/2014.
10/06/2020
12,000
7860/18
23/01/2018
Marina Yevgenyevna BUKHANTSEVA
1967
18/03/2020
1,150
36467/18
23/07/2018
Yevgeniy Vitalyevich POPOV
1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and in respect of inadequate conditions of transport and his placement in a metal cage in court hearings,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the St Petersburg City Court of 08/06/2018 was not decided speedily,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport and detention in convoy transit cells during the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in an overcrowded van on many occasions; lack of ventilation, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms in the St Petersburg City Court, during the criminal proceedings against the applicant,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - conditions of detention in IZ-47/4 St Petersburg from 14/12/2016 to 26/11/2018.
10/04/2020
31/07/2020
14,500
47356/18
20/09/2018
Galina Nikolayevna VASYANOVICH
1965
Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich
Rostov-on-Don
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow delivered on 04/05/2018 was examined only on 04/07/2018 by the Moscow City Court on appeal
10/06/2020
04/08/2020
3,090
57054/18
09/01/2019
Viktor Gennadyevich KOTELNIKOV
1975
18/03/2020
07/07/2020
1,300
34642/19
26/06/2019
Viktoriya Viktorovna BRIL
1974
Zykov Andrey Leonidovich
Moscow
18/03/2020
07/07/2020
1,200
37184/19
01/07/2019
Sergey Valeryevich CHULKIN
1974
Oreshnikova Yelena Aleksandrovna
Moscow
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - extension on 05/03/2019 by the Presnenskiy District Court, appeal on 01/04/2019 by the Moscow City Court
10/04/2020
18/08/2020
1,700
50808/19
13/09/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV
1970
Kubyshkin Dmitriy Aleksandrovich
Moscow
18/03/2020
1,000
63878/19
28/11/2019
Denis Yevgenyevich BELAVTSEV
1979
10/06/2020
1,050
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy