FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39563/11
Mikhail Georgiyevich SAAKOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2011,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Mikhail Georgiyevich Saakov, is a Russian national, who was born on 18 August 1977 and lived before his arrest in the town of Volgograd. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic. He was represented before the Court by Mrs V. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
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 pre-trial detention, lack of adequate medical assistance in detention and absence of an effective domestic remedy for his complaints.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. In particular, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of his grievances of the poor conditions of detention. They made a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicant in this respect and requested to strike the application out of the Court’s list of cases.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE QUALITY OF THE MEDICAL CARE IN DETENTION
5. The applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical assistance in detention in violation of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
He further complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy to raise this complaint, in violation of the guarantees of Article 13 of the Convention which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
6. Following the communication of the case to the Government, the applicant informed the Court of his intention to withdraw his application in the part concerning the quality of the medical care afforded to him in detention and the availability of domestic remedies in this respect.
7. The Court takes note of the applicant’s statement concerning his desire to no longer pursue the abovementioned complaints. It finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of this part of the case. Therefore, it finds it appropriate to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION
8. The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in a temporary detention facility from 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2013 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that he had not had recourse to an effective remedy to air that grievance before domestic authorities. Both Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention were cited above.
9. In their observations lodged with the Court on 31 January 2014, the Russian Government acknowledged that for five years the applicant had been detained in the conditions which had not complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective remedy to raise that complaint before Russian authorities. The Government also informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving that issue raised by the applicant. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
10. By the above declaration, the Government stated their readiness to pay to the applicant 17,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction. The remainder of the declaration read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the 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.”
11. On 20 June and 27 October 2014 the applicant submitted his comments on the above declaration. He accepted the Government’s proposal of just satisfaction. At the same time, he noted that the amount proposed by the Government did not take into account the costs and expenses incurred by him in the proceedings before the Court.
12. 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”.
13. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
14. 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; and WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
15. The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian pre-trial detention facilities (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002‑VI), it has found a violation of Article 3 on account of similar conditions of detention in more than ninety cases raising comparable issues. Most recently, the Court has adopted a pilot judgment concerning the structural problem of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.
16. Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s observations and declaration, 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 and that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy to raise that complaint in violation of the guarantees of Article 13 of the Convention.
17. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant, the Court notes that the proposed sum is not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 172). 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. As regards the legal costs and expenses, referred to by the applicant, the Court notes that it has a discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court and, for example, M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009; Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, §§ 52-56, 7 December 2007; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, §§ 130-133, ECHR 2007‑I; and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, § 33, 1 March 2005).
18. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application. 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 this part of the 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).
19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out this part of the application of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
III. AWARD OF COSTS
20. Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides:
“When an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court...”
21. The applicant submitted that costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court exceeded the sum offered by the Government. To that effect, he submitted the copies of four legal-services agreements with his lawyer, each of the agreements for a sum of 45,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately EUR 900 at the effective official exchange rate), and the receipts showing that the sums had been paid.
22. The Government confirmed their offer made in the unilateral declaration on 31 January 2014.
23. The Court observes that, when an application has been struck out in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. The Court reiterates that when making an award under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court, the general principles governing reimbursement of costs are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, M.C.E.A. Voorhuis v. the Netherlands cited above, no. 28692/06, 3 March 2009 and Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 11936/08, 27 September 2011). In other words, in order to be reimbursed, the costs must relate to the alleged violation, have been actually and necessarily incurred and be reasonable as to quantum.
24. The Court notes that the lawyer assisted the applicant in drafting his application to the Court and she submitted comments to the Government’s unilateral declaration. The Court thus accepts that some of the costs were actually and necessarily incurred. It further notes that according to the conditions of the unilateral declaration, the compensation was to cover these costs. However, the Court considers that the sum proposed by the Government is insufficient for that purpose and decides to use its discretion under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court (see Zakirov v. Russia (dec.), no. 50799/08, 18 February 2014; Scholvien and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 13166/08, 12 November 2013, Święch v. Poland (dec.), no. 60551/11, 1 July 2013 and Gil v. Poland (dec.), no. 46161/11, 4 June 2013).
25. Taking note of the costs genuinely and necessarily incurred in the proceedings before it, the Court awards the applicant reimbursement for costs and expenses in the amount of EUR 850. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the applicant’s statement concerning his desire to no longer pursue his application in the part concerning the absence of adequate medical assistance in detention and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect;
Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declaration concerning the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention related to the conditions of his detention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases;
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the applicant, within three months, in addition to the sum contained in the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government on 31 January 2014, EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the overall amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy