THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4952/16
Mark Valeryevich MOSTOVOY against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 July 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 Article 13 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 Article 13 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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations and indicated in the appended table.
The applicants in applications nos. 34067/18 and 36567/18 also complained about other periods of detention, not covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations. 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. 34067/18 and 36567/18 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 absence of an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention, 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 applications nos. 34067/18 and 36567/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 30 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
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]
4952/16
16/12/2015
Mark Valeryevich MOSTOVOY
23/07/1977
03/12/2019
4,500
16292/18
26/03/2018
Mikhail Andreyevich YERMIN
20/01/1984
21/01/2020
5,625
26409/18
17/07/2018
Andrey Sergeyevich TERENIN
24/04/1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
9,900
29406/18
29/11/2018
Roman Anatolyevich DEMIN
16/07/1975
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
21/01/2020
4,500
34067/18
30/06/2018
Konstantin Aleksandrovich LACHUGIN
31/10/1966
05/02/2019
03/04/2019
4,500
36567/18
13/07/2018
Vasiliy Sergeyevich ANTROPOV
02/06/1984
06/03/2020
14/05/2020
8,325
38251/18
24/07/2018
Sergey Sergeyevich IVANOV
21/09/1990
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
21/01/2020
4,500
43130/18
20/08/2018
Sergey Anatolyevich ZAKHAROV
10/06/1978
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
8,550
45217/18
09/09/2018
Aleksey Olegovich MUZAFAROV
29/08/1979
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
14/01/2020
8,325
21458/19
03/04/2019
Roman Removich ABSATAROV
28/01/1991
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
21/01/2020
4,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy