THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 12012/18 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich ORLOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9 July 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President,

Dmitry Dedov,

Gilberto Felici, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2018,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant ’ s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) . C omplaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues related to the applicant ’ s complaint about conditions of transport. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .

The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during transport . They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.

The terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration were sent to the applicant several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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 wishes the examination of the case 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 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 declaration 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 application (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 application in the part covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declaration (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport .

The applicant also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about conditions of his pre-trial detention.

The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant ’ s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of the application should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration regarding the inadequate conditions of detention during transport, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 July 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

( inadequate conditions of detention during transport )

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

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]

12012/18

23/04/2018

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich ORLOV

15/08/1982

19/02/2019

30/04/2019

1,000

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