SMETANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 72048/17, 76605/17, 79916/17, 80072/17, 80387/17, 18169/18, 20490/18, 27029/18, 28029/18, 29494/18, ... • ECHR ID: 001-194646
Document date: June 20, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 72048/17 Sergey Nikolayevich SMETANIN against Russia and 22 other applications
(s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 June 2 0 19 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 during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”) . In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 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 during transport . In some of the applications they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant s ’ rights guaranteed by Article 13 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 inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 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 insofar as they concerned the conditions of detention during transport and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law (see the appended table) (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 during transport and the complaints under the well-stablished case-law, as covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government.
The applicant in application no. 20490/18 also complained about his conditions of detention.
The Court has examined that complaint 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention and it 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. 20490/18 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 during transport 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 application no. 20490/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 July 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 during transport )
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]
72048/17
20/09/2017
Sergey Nikolayevich Smetanin
19/11/1991
Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich
Pechora
22/05/2018
05/07/2018
1,000
76605/17
06/10/2017
Igor Vladimirovich Dukhovskoy
10/01/1972
22/05/2018
03/07/2018
1,000
79916/17
10/11/2017
Denis Aleksandrovich Shishelov
08/05/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport
22/05/2018
29/06/2018
1,000
80072/17
14/11/2017
Sergey Latynbayevich Yusupov
06/08/1974
22/05/2018
10/07/2018
1,000
80387/17
06/11/2017
Maksim Eduardovich Butakov
30/04/1988
22/05/2018
06/07/2018
1,000
18169/18
21/05/2018
Maksim Viktorovich Grigoryev
04/01/1978
14/01/2019
23/03/2019
1,000
20490/18
04/04/2018
Sergey Viktorovich Smirnov
20/01/1981
19/02/2019
04/04/2019
1,000
27029/18
16/05/2018
Danila Aleksandrovich Sukharev
13/03/1983
14/01/2019
27/03/2019
1,000
28029/18
24/05/2018
Aleksey Sergeyevich Garanin
20/12/1977
14/01/2019
28/03/2019
1,000
29494/18
31/05/2018
Khuler Eduardovich Bopuy-ool
10/08/1993
22/01/2019
-
1,000
29967/18
06/06/2018
Marian Angelov Penev
29/04/1987
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
22/01/2019
-
1,000
30690/18
30/05/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Valkovskiy
23/05/1991
21/01/2019
-
1,000
30810/18
14/05/2018
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Dilshnayder
29/10/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
22/01/2019
21/03/2019
1,000
30826/18
05/06/2018
Sergey Vyacheslavovich Loyev
20/09/1972
22/01/2019
28/03/2019
1,000
31019/18
06/06/2018
Ruslan Saubanovich Zaripov
25/01/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
21/01/2019
21/03/2019
1,000
31261/18
14/06/2018
Zaur Magomed Ogly Buliyev
22/08/1990
22/01/2019
23/03/2019
1,000
31329/18
10/06/2018
Andrey Ivanovich Nazin
11/04/1977
21/01/2019
28/03/2019
1,000
33689/18
25/06/2018
Aleksandr Anatolyevich Kashin
08/08/1977
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
29/01/2019
28/03/2019
1,000
34689/18
09/07/2018
Vadim Nikolayevich Arinushkin
12/03/1974
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
29/01/2019
23/03/2019
1,000
34854/18
30/06/2018
Roman Vladimirovich Chernoknizhnyy
31/01/1979
21/01/2019
28/03/2019
1,000
34920/18
12/07/2018
Dmitriy Anatolyevich Aldushin
05/03/1968
29/01/2019
-
1,000
34957/18
09/07/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich Rozhnev
08/01/1976
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
11/03/2019
30/04/2019
1,000
35829/18
11/07/2018
Eduard Viktorovich Bakhonskiy
05/10/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
29/01/2019
-
1,000
[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.