THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 805/17 Vladislav Vladimirovich ROMANOV against Russia and 11 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 October 2019 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 (see the appended table). 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 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 (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 inadequate conditions of detention, insofar as covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, as well as the other complaints under the well-established case-law mentioned therein (see the appended table).

The applicant s in applications nos. 33954/17 and 64414/17 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

The Court has examined those complaints 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, they 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 application s nos. 33954/17 and 64414/17 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, insofar as covered by the declarations, and the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see 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. 33954/17 and 64414/17 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 November 2019 .

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) [i]

805/17

13/01/2017

Vladislav Vladimirovich Romanov

14/12/1959

Viktorova Natalya Aleksandrovna

Dzerzhinsk

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport .

14/07/2017

22/09/2017

1,500

16765/17

13/02/2017

Aleksandr Igorevich Belchenkov

15/06/1992

Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich

Moscow

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

17/10/2017

22/11/2017

1,000

33954/17

10/04/2017

Safarmurod Saidmurodovich Makhmudov

14/09/1988

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

02/01/2018

04/05/2018

7,000

64414/17

27/03/2018

Kirill Aleksandrovich Solodukhin

22/07/1980

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

04/10/2018

27/11/2018

1,365

9128/18

22/05/2018

Erik Iskoyevich

Mirzoyan

02/02/1992

Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich

St Petersburg

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant from the detention facility to courthouse or to take part in investigative actions in the period from 18/12/2017 to 25/01/2018; overcrowded transit cells, transport by van; no safety belts; on occasions no seats; the applicant had to stand during transport .

16/01/2019

25/03/2019

12,000

9290/18

02/04/2018

Pavel Sergeyevich

Selivanov

14/10/1978

16/10/2018

12/02/2019

1,365

9560/18

25/01/2018

Sergey Alekseyevich Shcheglov

28/03/1976

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transport on 11/08/2017 and 21/08/2017 .

14/09/2018

31/10/2018

2,000

14653/18

05/02/2018

Dmitriy Olegovich Los

12/07/1990

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

09/01/2019

21/03/2019

12,450

16357/18

13/04/2018

Yuriy Ivanovich Titov

08/08/1970

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

16/10/2018

-

1,365

22822/18

25/04/2018

Aleksandr Vitalyevich Zavorokhin

08/04/1974

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

30/10/2018

09/01/2019

2,260

28563/18

30/05/2018

Denis Nikolayevich Abramov

21/08/1981

Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna

St Petersburg

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

09/01/2019

21/03/2019

2,000

29872/18

02/06/2018

Sergey Yuryevich Mironov

20/11/1989

Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich

St Petersburg

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

25/01/2019

23/03/2019

3,500

[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.