THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 69506/17
Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich TIMOFEYEV against Russia
and 10 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 April 2019 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 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 these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions 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, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law as listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, and 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 in these parts (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, insofar as they were addressed in the unilateral declarations, and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table).
The applicants in applications nos. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court has examined these complaints 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 applications nos. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 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, concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see the appended table), 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 applications nos. 14092/18, 15696/18 and 19361/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 May 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date 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]
69506/17
13/11/2017
Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Timofeyev
11/09/1988
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
16/07/2018
-
5,750
6925/18
30/11/2017
Vladimir Aleksandrovich Rashchupkin
06/01/1978
04/10/2018
07/02/2019
9,000
8453/18
08/12/2017
Artush Garnikovich Sianosyan
18/06/1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
04/10/2018
-
9,500
9402/18
15/01/2018
Ruslan Lenurovich Nikitenko
20/08/1997
04/10/2018
-
1,360
9444/18
07/02/2018
Aleksey Stanislavovich Bondarchuk
31/03/1988
04/10/2018
-
6,750
13647/18
28/02/2018
Anton Andreyevich
Gusev
15/03/1986
04/10/2018
30/11/2018
6,000
14092/18
04/12/2017
Oleg Romanovich Gaydukov
04/11/1990
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
04/10/2018
-
4,500
15696/18
11/01/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Petrovets
02/05/1978
04/10/2018
13/12/2018
4,500
17766/18
23/03/2018
Maksim Viktorovich Lysenko
22/04/1979
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
02/10/2018
28/11/2018
8,250
17982/18
07/03/2018
Dato Amiranovich Zalamize
30/06/1978
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
02/10/2018
-
5,000
19361/18
05/04/2018
Dilmurod Nazhmiddovich Nerutdinov
24/11/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - ,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - from IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg to IK-21 in the Chelyabinsk Region from 15/10/2017 to 13/11/2017 (overcrowding, restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, inadequate bedding and bed linen, inadequate hygienic facilities)
02/10/2018
18/03/2019
2,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy