THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25008/17
Mikhail Aleksandrovich NAUMENKO and
Ivan Aleksandrovich TKACHENKO against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, 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 during transport 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 acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 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 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 during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 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 insofar as they concern the conditions of the applicants’ transport and the availability of domestic remedies to complain about it (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 (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 during transport and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as indicated in the appended table.
The applicant in application no. 71457/17 also raised other complaints under the Convention.
The Court has examined these complaints 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 the application 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 during transport and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as indicated 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. 71457/17 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 September 2018.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
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]
25008/17
07/03/2017
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Naumenko
07/05/1988
Ivan Aleksandrovich Tkachenko
30/12/1979
26/03/2018
16/05/2018
1,000
69374/17
28/08/2017
Maksim Fedorovich Starchenko
16/09/1985
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
26/03/2018
16/05/2018
1,000
71457/17
24/09/2017
Ilya Aleksandrovich Yegorshin
21/07/1977
Ryzhov Anton Igorevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
26/03/2018
18/05/2018
1,000
71698/17
18/09/2017
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Mokhnatkin
10/05/1975
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
26/03/2018
04/05/2018
1,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy