Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 41234/13 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV against Russia and 20 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 June 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 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 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 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 inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, 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 the part 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 inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declarations and listed in the appended table.

Some applicant s also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

The Court has examined the application s listed in the appended table 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 the application s 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 the other complaints under the well-established case-law (listed in 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 the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention ( inadequate conditions of detention )

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date 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]

41234/13

03/06/2013

Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich BYKOV

26/08/1971

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport of the applicant on 19/08/2013 in an overcrowded van ( 0.2 sq m. of personal space) without ventilation; and his subsequent detention in a transi t cell in unsanitary conditions ,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport

12/09/2016

4,500

57248/15

11/11/2015

Artur Rinatovich CHALDAYEV

06/08/1986

Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna

Saransk

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was kept in a metal cage during the trial proceedings which ended on 14/05/2015 (date of verdict),

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in an overcrowded van on numerous occasions in the period from 10/06/2014 to 18/05/2015

16/01/2018

05/04/2018

8,700

18949/17

18/02/2017

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich KAZAMAROV

03/08/1978

Zimirev Yevgeniy Ivanovich

Nizhnekamsk

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of detention in a transit cell in the court building on the days o f the hearings until 01/11/2016 ,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

15/09/2017

2,000

72031/17

24/09/2017

Ismoildzhon Nosirovich SULAYM O NOV

13/02/1994

Seleznev Yevgeniy Anatolyevich

Moscow

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

03/04/2018

17/05/2018

5,500

75886/17

20/09/2017

Nikolay Vasilyevich ROMANYUK

06/05/1956

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

11/06/2018

5,250

80496/17

10/11/2017

Timur Sergeyevich TROTSENKO

11/03/1988

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport on 11/07/2017

15/05/2018

20/07/2018

3,000

80781/17

27/11/2017

Aleksey Anatolyevich RASTOPCHIN

15/05/1984

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna

Strasbourg

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport between the detention facilities and courts and detention in transit cells from October 2010 to July 2017,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and transport

15/05/2018

15,000

84530/17

19/09/2017

Ramazan Abdulmutalibovich ABDULLAYEV

25/01/1996

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Poor conditions of transport by van and train on 12/09/2017-13/09/2017 and in a van on 18/09/2017, as well as detention in transit cells of

IZ-1 of the Nizhniy Novgorod

16/07/2018

26/09/2018

2,100

84578/17

09/12/2017

Edvard Borisovich ZOLOTUKHIN

12/05/1962

Timireva Olga Vladimirovna

Moscow

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Return journeys on 30/08/2017, 26/10/2017 and 24/11/2017 between IZ-1 of Moscow and Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow: 0.5 sq.m of personal space, no access to toilet, inadequate temperature, insufficient seats for everybody.,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

11/06/2018

28/06/2018

5,285

4278/18

12/12/2017

Aleksandr Leonidovich ANDREYEV

21/03/1976

17/07/2018

25/09/2018

2,095

5693/18

29/12/2017

Sergey Vladimirovich SUKHOV

18/04/1980

Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich

St Petersburg

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

18/09/2018

20/11/2018

2,095

8241/18

05/01/2018

Ivan Vladimirovich KAPITONOV

10/03/1971

Voronin Konstantin Vasilyevich

St Petersburg

18/09/2018

05/12/2018

1,750

10675/18

14/06/2018

Viktor Konstantinovich MARTSENYUK

18/06/1987

25/01/2019

2,825

13685/18

05/03/2018

Aleksandr Viktorovich VORONOV

04/01/1982

12/03/2019

15/05/2019

7,875

14467/18

14/03/2018

Roman Aleksandrovich IVANKIN

30/12/1989

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

09/01/2019

26/03/2019

9,500

27168/18

14/05/2018

Viktor Konstantinovich SOLOVYEV

07/08/1958

25/01/2019

9,000

29949/18

07/06/2018

Roman Borisovich NEVELSKIY

07/01/1980

Kuznetsov Aleksey Alekseyevich

St Petersburg

25/01/2019

3,555

30074/18

14/06/2018

Dmitriy Sergeyevich SENKIN

07/01/1979

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

25/01/2019

27/03/2019

3,528

30367/18

26/05/2018

Pavel Valeryevich GRACHEV

13/04/1976

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

12/03/2019

6,500

30803/18

14/06/2018

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich BARANOV

10/05/1962

18/02/2019

13/05/2019

4,950

36454/18

23/07/2018

Mikhail Petrovich SETSKO

21/05/1988

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

12/03/2019

30/04/2019

6,150

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

Menu

BYKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

BYKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI