BAKSHEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 64652/17, 780/18, 2531/18, 7969/18, 9066/18, 9432/18, 16279/18, 17091/18, 17446/18, 17781/18, 19329/... • ECHR ID: 001-196241
Document date: August 29, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 64652/17 Vladimir Vyacheslavovich BAKSHEYEV against Russia and 14 other applications
(s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 August 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 and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as listed in the appended table.
The applicant in application no. 2531/18 also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of detention during transport.
The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 no. 2531/18 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 relating to 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 application no. 2531/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 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]
64652/17
12/12/2017
Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Baksheyev
22/03/1977
16/07/2018
-
2,825
780/18
05/02/2018
Aleksandr Viktorovich Shamchenok
09/03/1990
18/09/2018
-
7,000
2531/18
27/12/2017
Ivan Vitalyevich Medvedev
30/07/1986
14/09/2018
31/10/2018
3,190
7969/18
28/12/2017
Leonid Yevgenyevich Freydman
08/01/1980
17/09/2018
-
2,460
9066/18
15/05/2018
Safarali Nusratulloyevich Kholnazarov
06/09/1989
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
09/01/2019
-
8,600
9432/18
01/02/2018
Aleksey Vladimirovich Yefimov
13/08/1974
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
19/02/2019
30/04/2019
3,920
16279/18
23/03/2018
Oleg Vyacheslavovich Chernikov
14/03/1972
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - ,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport between IZ-1 Rostov Region and the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on no less than 20 occasions from February 2017 to 27 September 2017: overcrowding both in transit vans and holding cells at the court, lack of fresh air and inadequate temperature inside transit vans, restricted access to toilet, lack of natural light, lack or insufficient electric light and restricted access to potable water,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/01/2019
21/03/2019
5,650
17091/18
11/03/2018
Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Moskayev
28/02/1983
04/10/2018
-
4,250
17446/18
31/03/2018
Vasiliy Vladimirovich Belikov
13/03/1986
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport between 24/03/2017 and 22/12/2017 in van: lack of ventilation, lack of electric light, inadequate temperature, stay in "glass" of 1 m² four hours before transport,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
04/10/2018
14/12/2018
7,550
17781/18
07/03/2018
Zhasur Furkatovich Azizov
17/01/1996
04/10/2018
-
4,250
19329/18
26/03/2018
Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zuyev
15/10/1981
04/10/2018
21/01/2019
2,260
19941/18
01/04/2018
Oleg Viktorovich Plyusov
20/01/1968
04/10/2018
-
6,150
24643/18
25/04/2018
Vladimir Andreyevich Gutin
07/11/1980
30/10/2018
05/03/2019
12,850
25681/18
15/05/2018
Denis Vladimirovich Pugin
08/05/1993
Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich
Nizhniy Novgorod
10/01/2019
26/03/2019
1,895
26253/18
10/05/2018
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Kuzmin
05/01/1978
09/01/2019
10/04/2019
2,260
[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.