LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
BERDUTO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 25125/09, 63242/09, 3046/12, 4830/12, 6905/13, 13927/13, 49999/13, 54889/13, 70362/13, 4482/14, 4920... • ECHR ID: 001-167511
Document date: September 15, 2016
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
BERDUTO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 25125/09, 63242/09, 3046/12, 4830/12, 6905/13, 13927/13, 49999/13, 54889/13, 70362/13, 4482/14, 4920... • ECHR ID: 001-167511
Document date: September 15, 2016
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25125/09 Aleksey Gennadyevich BERDUTO against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended )
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications 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 applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants ’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial 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 further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the excessive length of pre-trial detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants ’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts 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 amounts 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 cases.
The Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 applications”.
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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court ’ s case-law, and in particular the 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 excessive length of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 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 6 October 2016 .
Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative 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]
25125/09
29/04/2009
Aleksey Gennadyevich BERDUTO
02/02/1966
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
29/04/2016
8,500
63242/09
20/10/2009
Igor Rudolfovich KALANTAROV
17/12/1972
29/04/2016
1,450
3046/12
27/10/2011
Vyacheslav Gennadyevich MAZANKIN
05/03/1970
29/04/2016
21/06/2016
3,850
4830/12
12/01/2012
Andrey Vladimirovich TSAREGRADSKIY
20/03/1967
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
03/02/2016
2,800
6905/13
21/12/2012
Sergey Vladimirovich KUSTOVSKIY
02/01/1978
18/03/2016
2,000
13927/13
16/12/2012
Oleg Mikhaylovich KHAVAYEV
16/01/1953
01/06/2016
01/08/2016
2,650
49999/13
10/07/2013
Mikhail Vladislavovich YEFRYUSHKIN
19/09/1979
01/06/2016
5,100
54889/13
02/08/2013
Mekhti Abdinovich GUZHAYEV
21/09/1977
18/03/2016
1,100
70362/13
14/10/2013
Aleksey Viktorovich KUDRYAVTSEV
13/02/1974
Stenkin Aleksey Ivanovich
Moscow
18/03/2016
2,700
4482/14
19/12/2013
Viktor Aleksandrovich SHCHEKOTOV
23/04/1950
Burguchev Anton Aleksandrovich
Chelyabinsk
03/02/2016
1,800
49203/14
25/06/2014
Lyubov Vladimirovna KALENTAROVA
24/09/1978
03/02/2016
29/06/2016
1,600
8851/15
04/02/2015
Aleksandr Nikolayevich KOSULIN
04/08/1974
29/04/2016
1,050
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
