THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 77635/11 Sergey Vladimirovich TSEPELEV against Russia and 6 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov, Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s 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 applicant s is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) . In application no. 38417/15 the applicant complained in respect of two non-consecutive periods of his pre-trial detention, i.e., from 28 January 2013 to 6 October 2014 and from 19 May 2016 to 30 January 2017 . In application no. 40457/18, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention (see the appended table).

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 excessive length of pre-trial detention . In application no. 40457/18, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant ’s rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amount s 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 amount s 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 case s .

The applicant s 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 applicant s 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 applicant s wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law covered by the unilateral declarations (see, for example, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012 and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations (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 excessive length of pre-trial detention, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law as covered by the unilateral declarations.

As regards application no. 38417/15, the above findings apply to the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 19 May 2016 to 30 January 2017. As to the complaint in respect of the period of pre-trial detention from 28 January 2013 to 6 October 2014, the Court 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of application no. 38417/15 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law in application no. 40457/18 and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the applications insofar as covered by the unilateral declarations out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of application no. 38417/15 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021 .

             {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

( excessive length of pre-trial detention )

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s 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) [1]

77635/11

17/11/2011

Sergey Vladimirovich TSEPELEV

1966

28/01/2021

11/03/2021

6,440

38417/15

18/07/2015

Aleksey Alekseyevich KATKALOV

1981

18/03/2020

20/05/2020

850

40457/18

20/08/2018

Viktor Ivanovich FILATOV

1961Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich

Vnukovskoye

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van on numerous occasions from the detention facility to the courthouse since 30/06/2015, proceedings are still pending; transport on-going; use of an individual box (" stakan ") to transport the applicant; extremely cramped conditions; restricted access to toilet; lack of fresh air; inadequate temperatures,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the detention order of 04/12/2018, the appeal review on 19/02/2019; detention order of 0 1/04/2019, appealed against on 0 2/04/2019, examined on appeal on 25/04/2019,

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage and a glass compartment ("aquarium") in extremely cramped conditions with the applicant having been handcuffed in a number of hearings before the Basmanyy District Court of Moscow and Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow since 30/06/2015 .

10/04/2020

15/07/2020

3,400

21725/19

06/04/2019

Raul Rinatovich BEKPAYEV

1995Chumakov Lev Yuryevich

Kazan

02/10/2019

04/12/2019

900

1729/20

19/12/2019

Arkadiy Andreyevich PILIPENKO

1988

14/08/2020

17/09/2020

2,380

10266/20

04/02/2020

Petr Andreyevich EBISHEV

1992Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich

Moscow

26/10/2020

14/12/2020

1,890

26701/20

10/06/2020

Aleksey Vladimirovich SIROTENKO

1978Marchenko Roman Vasilyevich

Astrakhan

28/01/2021

11/03/2021

2,100

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant