THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41917/06
Batyr Dzhorakulovich ROZYYEV against Russia
and 19 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2019 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,
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 Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They 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 (see 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 informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations.
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 Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of these parts of the applications.
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 the other complaints listed in the appended table and covered by the Government’s declarations.
Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence and having regard to the fact that the friendly settlement agreements have covered the main legal questions raised in the present applications, 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 or, as concerns application no. 41917/06, there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014 with further references),
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention and, for application no. 41917/06, left without further examination.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law listed in the appended table and covered by the friendly settlement;
Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in application no. 41917/06 and declares the remainder of the remaining applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Deputy Section 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 acceptance
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
41917/06
31/07/2006
Batyr Dzhorakulovich Rozyyev
22/09/1970
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - detention in a correctional colony in the Vladimir Region between 12/12/2006 and 16/10/2009,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention ,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention
13/10/2015
26/02/2016
13,675
54786/16
06/09/2016
Vladimir Rudolfovich Gorskiy
02/05/1983
11/05/2017
19/09/2017
4,675
21658/17
07/03/2017
Sergey Ivanovich Tkachenko
18/12/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –
12/10/2017
05/12/2017
7,000
32429/17
21/06/2017
Aleksey Nikolayevich Tsvetkov
25/03/1975
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 04/02/2017 van, overcrowding, inadequate temperature
16/01/2018
09/03/2018
5,750
34809/17
14/04/2017
Yuriy Vladimirovich Rakh
06/09/1982
Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
12/10/2017
13/12/2017
9,750
34897/17
25/04/2017
Mubariz Orudzh Ogly Mamedov
19/01/1972
12/10/2017
07/12/2017
4,090
53384/17
18/07/2017
Eldar Suyundikovich Esbolganov
10/06/1994
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
16/01/2018
01/03/2018
5,000
53739/17
15/07/2017
Samit Sayfiyevich Tashmatov
01/03/1961
Yezhov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich
Velikiy Novgorod
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg until 21/03/2017 (convicted).
16/01/2018
02/03/2018
9,000
53763/17
06/07/2017
Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shalamov
09/12/1976
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
16/01/2018
12/02/2018
1,000
56244/17
03/08/2017
Nuritdin Zayirovich Kurbanov
15/10/1974
Magomedova Roza Saidovna
Moscow
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
20/03/2018
09/05/2018
2,214
58908/17
10/09/2017
Dmitryy Igorevich Smokvin
23/08/1989
Magomedova Roza Saidovna
Moscow
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 02/03/2017. Appeal lodged on 04/03/2017. Appeal hearing on 27/03/2017,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
20/03/2018
09/05/2018
5,850
68016/17
30/08/2017
Mikhail Alekseyevich Martynov
13/09/1988
Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention following the quashing of the trial judgment by the appeal court on 05/12/2014 and authorisation of detention on remand. Release on 21/03/2017
20/03/2018
01/06/2018
10,000
73461/17
29/09/2017
Ilya Alekseyevich Yegorov
18/12/1986
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
20/03/2018
01/06/2018
12,825
74178/17
29/09/2017
Islam Rusanbekovich Albogachiyev
22/11/1990
Nevzorov Dmitriy Gennadyevich
St Petersburg
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - during the 34 hearings in total he was put in the metal cage. Verdict of the Smolensk Regional Court, 29/03/2017.
15/05/2018
13/07/2018
10,000
78882/17
31/10/2017
Andrey Yuryevich Glukhov
22/10/1978
15/05/2018
12/07/2018
2,095
82756/17
20/11/2017
Vladimir Borisovich Dereberya
09/11/1973
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to examine "speedily" the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don
16/07/2018
19/09/2018
5,500
83335/17
12/11/2017
Konstantin Yuryevich Gavrilov
26/02/1994
Korobeynikov Grigoriy Anatolyevich
St Petersburg
15/05/2018
04/07/2018
11,477
2229/18
11/12/2017
Sergey Mikhaylovich Vidyakin
11/03/1982
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
16/07/2018
18/09/2018
2,600
3742/18
23/12/2017
Pavel Vladimirovich Zykov
03/04/1983
Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich
Rostov-na-Donu
16/07/2018
17/09/2018
2,460
4536/18
21/12/2017
Roman Viktorovich Firsov
17/06/1983
16/07/2018
04/09/2018
7,380
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy