THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12428/18
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich SHALAGINOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 February 2018,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged that the applicant had been transported in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements set out in Article3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective remedy in that respect in contravention of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.
The applicant did not accept the terms of the 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 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [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 declaration 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 application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements 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 15 April 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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]
12428/18
15/02/2018
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich SHALAGINOV
1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in respect of the complaint about poor conditions of transport
19/09/2018
12/11/2018
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy