FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28011/06
Guram Borisovich TARKHANOV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates listed in the appendix,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reaction to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appendix.
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 applicants complained that their detention on remand had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.
4. On 21 October 2013 the applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government for observations.
5. By letter of 18 December 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
6. In that declaration, the Government acknowledged that all the applicants had been detained without “relevant and sufficient” grounds on the basis of decisions rendered by Russian courts which had not complied with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction:
(a) 2,400 euros (EUR) to Mr Tarkhanov for his detention on remand “during 1 year, 2 months and 9 days from 24 December 2007”;
(b) EUR 2,560 to Mr Parfenov for his detention on remand “during 1 year, 3 months and 6 days from 24 July 2006”;
(c) EUR 3,680 to Mr Davydov for his detention on remand “during 1 year, 10 months and 4 days from 6 October 2005”; and
(d) EUR 3,360 to Mr Zolnikov for his detention on remand “during 1 year, 8 months and 10 days from 21 November 2007”.
7. The remainder of their declarations provided as follows:
“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 European Convention on Human Rights. 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.”
8. The applicants were invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations, if they so wished. They submitted no comments in reply.
THE LAW
9. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision.
10. 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”.
11. 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.
12. 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; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
13. The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the lengthy detention on remand in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 104-121, ECHR 2002‑VI), it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of excessively lengthy detention on remand without proper justification in more than eighty cases against Russia (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 200, 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.
14. Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and explicitly acknowledged that their detention on remand had been in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
15. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them certain amounts of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of those sums within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.
16. The Court is satisfied that the amounts of compensation proposed are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar Russian cases (see Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia, no. 29985/05, 19 June 2012).
17. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases. 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 issues, 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 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 applications to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006 and Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications,
Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declarations concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities 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.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
28011/06
13/06/2006
Guram Borisovich TARKHANOV
05/04/1966
Vladikavkaz
21525/07
20/03/2007
Aleksandr Sergeyevich PARFENOV
21/07/1980
Tyumen
21155/08
04/03/2008
Vitaliy Borisovich DAVYDOV
07/12/1962
Belgorod
36234/08
15/06/2008
Yuriy Grigoryevich ZOLNIKOV
16/08/1950
Samara
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy