THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25008/17 Mikhail Aleksandrovich NAUMENKO and Ivan Aleksandrovich TKACHENKO against Russia and 3 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 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 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 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 during transport. 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 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 concern the conditions of the applicants ’ transport and the availability of domestic remedies to complain about it (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 during transport and other complaints under the well-established case-law, as indicated in the appended table.

The applicant in application no. 71457/17 also raised other complaints under the Convention.

The Court has examined these 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, 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 the application 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, as indicated 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. 71457/17 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 0 September 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]

25008/17

07/03/2017

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Naumenko

07/05/1988

Ivan Aleksandrovich Tkachenko

30/12/1979

26/03/2018

16/05/2018

1,000

69374/17

28/08/2017

Maksim Fedorovich Starchenko

16/09/1985

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport

26/03/2018

16/05/2018

1,000

71457/17

24/09/2017

Ilya Aleksandrovich Yegorshin

21/07/1977

Ryzhov Anton Igorevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport

26/03/2018

18/05/2018

1,000

71698/17

18/09/2017

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Mokhnatkin

10/05/1975

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport

26/03/2018

04/05/2018

1,000

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