THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 22935/10 Andrey Alekseyevich ZVYAGIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Andrey Alekseyevich Zvyagin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1961. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. A. Zvyagin , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

The applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his transport from the remand prison to the correctional facility and under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom before the trial court.

These complaints were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE LAW

By a letter of 5 September 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s transfer from the remand prison to the correctional facility and his confinement in the metal cage during the trial. They offered to pay the applicant 6,500 euros , to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.

By a letter of 13 October 2016 the applicant rejected the Government ’ s offer.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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 an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court ’ s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (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 conditions of transport (see Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, § § 112-20, ECHR 2005 ‑ X (extracts); Guliyev v. Russia , no. 24650/02, §§ 47-70, 19 June 2008; Starokadomskiy v. Russia , no. 42239/02, § § 53-60, 31 July 2008; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012; and M.S. v. Russia , no. 8589/08 , §§ 78-79, 10 July 2014 ) and the confinement of defendants in metal cages in courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § § 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Urazov v. Russia , no. 42147/05, §§ 81-92, 14 June 2016).

The Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicant and explicitly acknowledged the breaches of the Convention as claimed by him.

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, 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 application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Lastly, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 27 April 2017 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Luis López Guerra              Deputy Registrar President