THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46886/09
Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY against Russia
and 10 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 applications”.
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 the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the 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 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 (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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 July 2016.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
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 name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative 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 / household
(in euros)[i]
Proposed amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant;
for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)
46886/09
04/08/2009
Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY
28/04/1966
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –
(1) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 11/02/2011 was considered on 03/08/2011;
(2) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 21/09/2010 was considered on 01/12/2010;
(3) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 04/06/2010 was considered on 16/08/2010
30/10/2015
4,500
4,000
778/10
03/12/2009
Igor Valentinovich TARAKANOVSKIY
01/01/1965
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –
1) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 13/10/2009 was considered only on 19/01/2010
2) Complaint that the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 16/03/2010 was considered only 13/05/2010
30/10/2015
3,500
3,400
16831/11
07/02/2011
Viktor Aleksandrovich ZAGORODNIKOV
02/03/1963
Shkitskiy Aleksey Vladilenovich
Irkutsk
22/01/2016
04/04/2016
3,750
3,200
75605/11
14/11/2011
Aleksey Borisovich TEMELIDI
06/07/1969
22/01/2016
21/03/2016
4,600
4,000
35009/12
07/05/2012
Vladimir Alekseyevich MAROCHKIN
01/01/1973
Myynova Yuliya Yuryevna
Volgograd
22/01/2016
14/03/2016
2,850
2,500
41355/12
06/06/2012
Mariya Sergeyevna TROFIMOVA
07/09/1983
Semkin Vladimir Borisovich
Tyumen
30/10/2015
19/04/2016
3,000
2,600
67459/12
20/09/2012
Aleksey Mikhaylovich SHUMILKIN
13/04/1982
22/01/2016
3,800
3,200
81857/12
27/11/2012
Maksim Anatolyevich TAVOLZHANSKIY
01/01/1970
Fomin Mikhail Anatolyevich
Moscow
22/01/2016
29/03/2016
3,500
3,100
13832/13
19/02/2013
Ruslan Viktorovich TELKOV
21/10/1980
30/10/2015
16/02/2016
1,200
1,000
56979/13
29/08/2013
Dzhitender Kumar SINGLA
01/06/1972
22/01/2016
22/03/2016
1,950
1,800
21135/15
15/04/2015
Dmitriy Viktorovich KLIMENKO
29/06/1972
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
15/01/2016
1,900
2,100
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy