THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9134/17
Vitaliy Olegovich SHCHERBENKO against Russia
and 5 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 July 2018 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,
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 application no. 27409/17, a complaint based on the same facts was also communicated under Article 13 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 the applicants in respect of certain periods of their detention under Article 3 of the Convention, as well as under Article 13 in application no. 27409/17. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods and in the facilities covered by the unilateral declarations. In application no. 27409/17, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 13 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 applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, 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 inadequate conditions of detention and to the lack of an effective remedy in this regard (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 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 in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods and in the facilities covered by the unilateral declarations and the complaint under Article 13, as indicated in the appended table below.
The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention, primarily concerning the conditions of detention during the periods not covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations.
The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, 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.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations covering certain periods of inadequate conditions of detention as well as the other complaint under the well-established case-law, as indicated in the appended table, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications in the part covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
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
(in euros)[i]
9134/17
08/06/2017
Vitaliy Olegovich Shcherbenko
24/08/1989
01/02/2018
5,500
11451/17
24/04/2017
Mikhail Arnoldovich Nayman
01/02/1975
10/01/2018
6,750
11494/17
02/06/2017
Anatoliy Viktorovich Karbunenko
06/07/1962
01/02/2018
3,190
27409/17
26/05/2017
Yan Valeryevich Rodionov
28/01/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
16/01/2018
4,650
43239/17
11/05/2017
Vladislav Vladimirovich Romanov
14/12/1959
Viktorova Natalya Aleksandrovna
Dzerzhinsk
16/01/2018
1,000
61682/17
02/08/2017
Andrey Borisovich Lizenkov
19/09/1968
Antonova Yekaterina Vladimirovna
St Petersburg
01/02/2018
09/04/2018
1,000
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy