LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
DIKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 52295/07, 67770/16, 52774/17, 61365/17, 83876/17, 5916/18, 11821/18, 13815/18, 14773/18, 15478/18, 1... • ECHR ID: 001-202998
Document date: May 14, 2020
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
DIKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 52295/07, 67770/16, 52774/17, 61365/17, 83876/17, 5916/18, 11821/18, 13815/18, 14773/18, 15478/18, 1... • ECHR ID: 001-202998
Document date: May 14, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52295/07 Mikhail Vitalyevich DIKIN against Russia and 17 other applications
( s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in application no. 52295/07 ,
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 terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations were sent to the applicants 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 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 as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table, and covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declarations.
The applicant s in applications nos. 52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined those application s 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.
In particular, in application no. 27617/18 the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (( dec. ), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
It follows that this part of application s nos. 52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 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 as well as the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law, as 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 applications nos. 52295/07, 27617/18 and 20253/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 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 c omments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
52295/07
16/11/2007
Mikhail Vitalyevich DIKIN
28/03/1963
02/11/2015
07/12/2015
9,000
67770/16
31/10/2016
Khayytzhan Balyshovich KASYMOV
01/02/1987
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
11/05/2017
25/07/2017
5,250
52774/17
16/01/2018
Artem Nikolayevich PAVLIKHIN
30/06/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/09/2018
27/11/2018
3,528
61365/17
07/08/2017
Yevgeniy Vasilyevich SHERMANOV
15/02/1982
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention from 20/03/2014 to 27/04/2017;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 12/02/2016 to 27/04/2017; van, overcrowding, dirt, lack of fresh air.
22/02/2018
14,500
83876/17
30/11/2017
Sergey Viktorovich SMIRNOV
20/01/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
01/02/2019
3,555
5916/18
19/05/2018
Mikhail Andreyevich LEONIDOV
04/02/1995
Ukolova Svetlana Olegovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
15/01/2019
20/03/2019
4,285
11821/18
27/02/2018
Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich GUSEVSKIY
25/06/1996
15/01/2019
2,095
13815/18
05/03/2018
Aleksey Anatolyevich TIKHONOV
17/02/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2019
12/03/2019
8,550
14773/18
23/03/2018
Rustam Aliyevich KHISYAMOV
19/10/1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport from 18/07/2017 to 28/09/2017; transit cell, van (on six occasions, roundtrips).
10/01/2019
28/03/2019
4,555
15478/18
14/03/2018
Nikita Aleksandrovich CHIRKOV
21/04/1990
Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
10/01/2019
26/03/2019
1,895
16495/18
02/04/2018
Pavel Valentinovich MEDVEDEV
26/12/1986
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
09/01/2019
4,500
19733/18
26/03/2018
Vitaliy Sergeyevich GAPONENKO
05/09/1983
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
10/01/2019
21/03/2019
2,460
20253/18
14/04/2018
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich SNOPOV
25/07/1996
Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich
Kineshma
Art . 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2019
25/03/2019
1,730
20283/18
24/04/2018
Sayar Abrarovich MAKHMUTOV
15/02/1969
Art . 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
14/01/2019
23/03/2019
3,920
24160/18
21/05/2018
Soslan Sergeyevich KABOLOV
20/06/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
30/10/2018
09/05/2019
8,850
26385/18
21/05/2018
Ilya Aleksandrovich SERDYUKOV
01/06/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport in an overcrowded van and detention in a transit cell in the period from 23/08/2017 to 16/02/2018; lack of privacy for toilet; lack of fresh air.
16/01/2019
28/03/2019
9,500
27617/18
16/05/2018
Andrey Sergeyevich YAKOVLEV
20/06/1983
09/01/2019
26/03/2019
6,975
30245/18
09/06/2018
Azamat Ruslanovich SAKIYEV
04/02/1984
Demidova Olga Petrovna
St Petersburg
18/02/2019
30/04/2019
4,285
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
