THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66304/09
Vladimir Mikhaylovich STEPANENKO against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, 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 during transport 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 the applicants. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during transport. 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 below in relation to other complaints under well-established case-law). 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 the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (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 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 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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport, as well as other complaints raised by the applicants under well-established case-law (see appended table below).
The applicant (application no. 66304/09) also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined that application 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 application no. 66304/09 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 in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention during transport, as well as other complaints raised by the applicants under well-established case-law (see appended table below), and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of application no. 66304/09 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 January 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
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]
66304/09
21/04/2010
Vladimir Mikhaylovich Stepanenko
13/09/1967
11/09/2013
21/10/2013
2,500
35656/10
07/05/2010
Vladimir Grigoryevich Bondarenko
31/01/1970
01/07/2016
1,000
70483/10
25/11/2010
Marat Minizyayetovich Khayrutdinov
27/02/1971
Khayrutdinova
Vera Nikolayevna
Moscou
22/09/2016
4,610
32456/11
25/03/2011
Aleksandr Arkadyevich Rimmer
14/08/1964
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 28/05/2008 detained by German authorities. 16/10/2008 – extradited to Russia. 27/10/2008 – placed in remand prison of Vologda. 12/03/2012 – convicted by the trial court.
01/07/2016
4,550
52837/12
21/07/2012
Vasiliy
Vasilyevich Lobanov
18/04/1970
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
01/07/2016
1,500
7169/14
18/12/2013
Daler Gulakhmadovich Gulmamadov
30/11/1975
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – for several months before first conviction and then pending the re-trial
01/07/2016
17/10/2016
2,900
18096/14
09/02/2014
Dmitriy Nikolayevich Kosenko
24/01/1979
Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
01/07/2016
28/09/2016
1,000
19035/14
24/05/2013
Taisiya
Vitalyevna
Osipova
26/08/1984
Mezak
Ernest Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
01/07/2016
28/09/2016
1,000
42873/15
15/07/2015
Anton Vladimirovich Alekseyev
06/06/1978
01/07/2016
03/10/2016
1,000
44161/15
22/07/2015
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Gromovoy
11/10/1983
Dunayeva
Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
01/07/2016
29/09/2016
2,000
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy