TKACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 63868/12, 48387/17, 1359/18, 4136/18, 7960/18, 7987/18, 11643/18, 12796/18, 13242/18, 16768/18, 1712... • ECHR ID: 001-192716
Document date: March 21, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63868/12 Yevgeniy Viktorovich TKACHEV against Russia and 12 other applications (see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , 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 applicant s ’ 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 (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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019 .
Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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]
63868/12
06/09/2012
Yevgeniy Viktorovich Tkachev
08/08/1979
26/03/2018
-
1,000
48387/17
06/09/2017
Aleddin Farkhad ogly Kerimov
26/01/1965
21/05/2018
20/06/2018
1,000
1359/18
07/12/2017
Roman Sergeyevich Shangareyev
24/02/1981
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about the poor conditions of transport
11/06/2018
27/07/2018
1,000
4136/18
01/12/2017
Ruslan Mukhamedyanovich Afkhalimov
30/04/1973
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/06/2018
16/07/2018
1,000
7960/18
09/01/2018
Ilya Anatolyevich Maslov
23/09/1971
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
19/09/2018
-
1,000
7987/18
09/01/2018
Yuriy Vladimirovich Shurygin
01/04/1961
19/09/2018
20/11/2018
1,000
11643/18
22/02/2018
Sergey Aleksandrovich Shevchenko
28/12/1992
26/09/2018
27/11/2018
1,000
12796/18
26/02/2018
Artur Ivanovich Gromov
08/08/1989
26/09/2018
-
1,000
13242/18
05/03/2018
Sergey Gennadyevich Volgin
18/05/1987
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
12/12/2018
1,000
16768/18
15/03/2018
Denis Sergeyevich Kyzyurov
12/01/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
26/11/2018
1,000
17123/18
21/03/2018
Aleksandr Valeryevich Meleshchenko
26/04/1983
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
27/11/2018
1,000
17587/18
15/03/2018
Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Bolkhovitin
22/02/1984
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
09/10/2018
08/01/2019
1,000
22485/18
28/04/2018
Yevgeniy Vasilyevich Lipin
30/11/1979
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
16/10/2018
09/01/2019
1,000
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.