FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52971/09
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich PODGORNYY
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 August 2009,
Having regard to the declaration 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
1. The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Podgornyy, is a Russian national, who was born in 1974 and lived in Novorossiysk in the Krasnodar Region prior to his conviction.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained about poor conditions of his detention in a correctional colony during several periods between 2008 and 2010.
4. On 1 April 2014 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in correctional colony IK-12 in the Volgograd Region amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
6. By letter submitted on 30 July 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:
“I..., the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, hereby declare that the Russian authorities acknowledge that, from 13 March 2008 to 31 March 2009, from 23 April 2009 to 22 July 2009 and from 9 August 2009 to 19 April 2010, Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Podgornyy was serving his sentence in the IK-12 facility in the Volgograd Region in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.
The authorities are ready to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 4 060 as just satisfaction.
The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
7. The applicant had been invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declaration, if he so wished, but did not submit any comments.
8. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.
9. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
10. The Court notes at the outset that in a number of cases it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the inhuman and degrading conditions of post-conviction detention in Russian correctional colonies (see Klyukin v. Russia, no. 54996/07, 17 October 2013, Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, 27 June 2013, and, most recently, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013). It follows that the complaint raised in the present application is based on the clear case-law of the Court.
11. Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicant and explicitly acknowledged that the conditions of his detention had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
12. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant, the Government have undertaken to pay him an amount of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. Even if that amount did not exactly correspond to the awards made by the Court in similar cases, what is important is that the proposed sum is not unreasonable in comparison with them (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 105, ECHR 2006‑V). The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of that sum within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.
13. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this case. As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgments concerning the same issue, the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of the present case. In any event, the Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the application to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).
14. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy