THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31666/07
Dmitriy Igorevich ZYUBAN against Russia
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on various dates,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on various dates requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants complained that the period of their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long and that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.
The applications were communicated to the Government.
On various dates the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further asked the Court to strike out the applications, in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
In the above-mentioned declarations, the Government acknowledged that all the applicants had been detained “without well-founded justification on the basis of the decisions rendered by the courts”, which did “not comply 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)1,550 euros (EUR) to Mr Zyuban for his pre-trial detention between 28 January 2007 and 5 May 2008;
(b)EUR 4,400 to Mr Matveyev for his pre-trial detention between 27 February 2009 and 26 January 2010;
(c)EUR 2,900 to Mr Satyukov for his pre-trial detention between 12 May 2009 and 29 September 2011;
(d)EUR 2,850 to Mr Podolin for his pre-trial detention between 18 December 2007 and 30 April 2010;
(e)EUR 950 to Mr Rozhenko for his pre-trial detention between 3 September 2009 and 16 June 2010;
(f)EUR 2,550 to Mr Dubinkin for his pre-trial detention between 19 November 2009 and 27 December 2011;
(g)EUR 1,350 to Mr Mayorov for his pre-trial detention between 29 September 2009 and 2 November 2010;
(h)EUR 2,300 to Mr Davydov for his pre-trial detention between 28 April 2009 and 28 March 2011;
(i)EUR 1,300 to Mr Bugayev for his pre-trial detention between 29 October 2009 and 26 November 2010;
(j)EUR 1,450 to Mr Korchagin for his pre-trial detention between 5 February 2010 and 20 April 2011;
(k)EUR 3,100 to Mr Ivanov for his pre-trial detention between 25 May 2010 and 18 December 2012;
(l)EUR 1,000 to Ms Repina for her pre-trial detention between 21 October 2011 and 17 August 2012;
(m)EUR 2,640 to Mr Yelchev for his pre-trial detention between 25 February 2012 and 25 June 2013;
(n)EUR 2,050 to Mr Demin for his pre-trial detention between 31 October 2012 and 18 July 2014.
The remainder of each declaration 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.”
By separate letters of various dates, the applicants rejected the Government’s offers. They expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were insufficient.
THE LAW
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.
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.”
It also observes 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, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles established in its case-law (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).
The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning lengthy pre-trial detention in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 104-121 ECHR 2002 VI), it has found in more than one hundred cases against Russia a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of an excessively lengthy pre-trial detention without proper justification. It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.
Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government does not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and has explicitly acknowledged that their pre-trial detention was in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them certain amounts as just satisfaction. 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 the event of a delay in settlement.
The Court is satisfied that the proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Yuriy Yakovlev v. Russia, no. 5453/08, § 95, 29 April 2010; Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 67, 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia, no. 29985/05, § 49, 19 June 2012).
The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue examining these cases. The Court is 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 cases. In any event, the Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision that it might take to restore the applications, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, to its list of cases should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations (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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016.
Fatoş AracıHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
31666/07
05/07/2007
Dmitriy Igorevich ZYUBAN
03/04/1959
Kursk
15615/09
25/02/2009
Denis Vladimirovich MATVEYEV
06/07/1979
Kirovskiy
9546/10
03/02/2010
Andrey Nikolayevich SATYUKOV
01/01/1985
Angarsk
23667/10
30/03/2010
Yevgeniy Maryanovich PODOLIN
05/04/1967
Moscow
26372/10
22/03/2010
Andrey Ignatyevich ROZHENKO
06/09/1981
Kostomuksha
37048/10
07/06/2010
Sergey Vasilyevich DUBINKIN
09/03/1955
Yekaterinburg
Mikhail Ivanovich TREPASHKIN
43419/10
05/07/2010
Yevgeniy Muratovich MAYOROV
08/06/1975
Omsk
59771/10
20/09/2010
Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV
08/08/1970
Kyshtym
74851/10
27/11/2009
Grigoriy Aleksandrovich BUGAYEV
28/03/1979
Usinsk
13678/11
28/01/2011
Sergey Yevgenyevich KORCHAGIN
17/01/1962
Moscow
Vladimir Vladimirovich GERALTOVSKIY
31980/12
06/05/2012
Andrey Yuryevich IVANOV
11/12/1971
Kashira
Valeriy Vladimirovich SHUKHARDIN
5494/13
05/12/2012
Yelena Olegovna REPINA
15/02/1964
St Petersburg
10172/13
14/01/2013
Gennadiy Konstantinovich YELCHEV
18/05/1952
Komsomolsk-On-Amour
50191/13
02/06/2013
Aleksandr Valentinovich DEMIN
03/10/1983
Bessonovka
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy