THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14641/12 Andrey Sergeyevich KHRUSHCHEV against Russia and 12 other applications

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 May 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 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial 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 excessive length of pre-trial 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, 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012), as well as to the other complaints under the well-established case-law as listed in the appended table.

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 (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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), as covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declarations.

The applicant in application no. 10851/19 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 application no. 10851/19 should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as set out 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 application no. 10851/19 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková 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

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]

14641/12

03/10/2011

Andrey Sergeyevich KHRUSHCHEV

1969

15/07/2019

2,850

45855/14

05/06/2014

Mustafa Khusseyn MOKHAMMED KHUSSEYN

1977

26/07/2019

2,300

33061/18

13/06/2018

Romualdas S. Vitauto KLIKUNAS

1982

25/01/2019

21/03/2019

2,300

33362/18

11/07/2018

Dmitriy Igorevich MEDVEDEV

1987Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich

Abakan

15/01/2020

25/02/2020

4,100

35993/18

10/07/2018

Anton Andreyevich GUSEV

1986

29/05/2019

2,600

40779/18

09/08/2018

Denis Sergeyevich YAKUSHIN

1984

14/10/2019

19/11/2019

2 , 650

41350/18

21/08/2018

Nikita Vladimirovich SAMOYLENKO

1997

29/05/2019

23/08/2019

2,600

45075/18

28/01/2019

Darkhan Askarovich ASKAROV

1993

26/07/2019

20/09/2019

3,000

49526/18

10/10/2018

Sergey Sergeyevich SERGEYEV

1979Frolov Andrey Vladimirovich

Volgograd

15/07/2019

13/09/2019

3,850

54160/18

31/08/2018

Sergey Olegovich FETISOV

1983Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decision of 21/03/2018 was examined on appeal on 26/04/2018

03/07/2019

3,250

4711/19

22/03/2019

Vadim Nikolayevich ZAVITAYEV

1994

02/10/2019

4,200

8212/19

19/01/2019

Aleksandr Viktorovich FROLOV

1984Mazitov Marat Farukovich

Moscow

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport,

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van; 30/08/2018 - 29/12/2018 (numerous occasions of transport to the court); overcrowding - proceedings are still pending.

02/10/2019

10/12/2019

2,600

10851/19

13/02/2019

Aleksandr Vasilyevich ARKHIPENKO

1974

02/10/2019

10/12/2019

3,900

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