THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 785/12 Vitaliy Vladimirovich PASHKEVICH against Russia and 11 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 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 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 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 below for other complaints under well-established case-law). 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, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law listed in the appended table (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, and 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 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 as regards the issues covered by the Government ’ s 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 in the relevant parts 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 under well-established case-law as listed in the attached table below.

The applicant s in applications nos. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

The Court has examined these 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.

It follows that this part of application s nos. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 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 in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention , as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law as listed in the attached table below, 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. 785/12, 34666/17 and 70194/17 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018 .

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]

785/12

12/12/2011

Vitaliy Vladimirovich Pashkevich

29/12/1971

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - two periods of detention: from initial detention in September 2010 till the conviction on 08/06/2011 and from quashing of the conviction on appeal on 07/09/2011 till the new court sentence dated 13/01/2012,

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

16/01/2018

8,000

41478/15

12/08/2015

Vadim Aleksandrovich Gasenko

26/06/1977

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 04/02/2015 to 24/03/2016,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decisions of 30/04/2015,

27/05/2015, 26/06/2015,

26/08/2015 and 15/12/2015

heard on 26/05/2015, 23/06/2015, 29/09/2015,

29/09/2015 and 09/02/2016, respectively

19/03/2018

04/05/2018

2,724

10223/17

14/03/2017

Vitaliy Vladimirovich Petrusevich

03/10/1979

12/10/2017

7,500

17269/17

15/09/2017

Sergey Vadimovich Aleksandrovich

17/03/1972

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

20/03/2018

3,528

34666/17

26/04/2017

Valentin Valeryevich Pshennikov

07/06/1978

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

16/01/2018

2,460

56225/17

12/06/2017

Aleksey Valentinovich Lavrentyev

20/10/1979

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

20/03/2018

3,528

62934/17

09/08/2017

Mikhail Vladimirovich Geyntse

20/11/1986

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Allegedly over 15 transits in the period from 15/12/2016 to 01/04/2017 from IVS to IZ-3 in Achinsk

03/04/2018

01/06/2018

3,000

65296/17

11/09/2017

Yuriy Aleksandrovich Kudryavtsev

22/03/1951

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

20/03/2018

17/05/2018

1,000

68830/17

01/09/2017

Anatoliy Anatolyevich Kolesnikov

15/01/1975

Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna

Rostov-na-Donu

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

03/04/2018

25/05/2018

4,285

70127/17

22/08/2017

Zurab Anzorovich Gabuniya

21/05/1974

19/03/2018

5,175

70194/17

14/08/2017

Ruslan Shamil ogly Guliyev

15/08/1989

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

19/03/2018

6,300

70846/17

13/09/2017

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Burlachenko

22/01/1980

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

03/04/2018

28/05/2018

1,385

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