Search
document

RYKHLITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 46886/09;778/10;16831/11;75605/11;35009/12;41355/12;67459/12;81857/12;13832/13;56979/13;21135/15 • ECHR ID: 001-164985

Document date: June 16, 2016

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

RYKHLITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 46886/09;778/10;16831/11;75605/11;35009/12;41355/12;67459/12;81857/12;13832/13;56979/13;21135/15 • ECHR ID: 001-164985

Document date: June 16, 2016

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 46886/09 Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting 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 7 July 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)

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 / household

(in euros) [i]

Proposed amount for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant;

for costs and expenses per application

(in euros)

46886/09

04/08/2009

Igor Nikolayevich RYKHLITSKIY

28/04/1966

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –

(1) Complaint that the applicant ’ s appeal against the detention order of 11/02/2011 was considered on 03/08/2011;

(2) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 21/09/2010 was considered on 01/12/2010;

(3) Complaint that his appeal against the detention order of 04/06/2010 was considered on 16/08/2010

30/10/2015

4,500

4,000

778/10

03/12/2009

Igor Valentinovich TARAKANOVSKIY

01/01/1965

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –

1) Complaint that the applicant ’ s appeal against the detention order of 13/10/2009 was considered only on 19/01/2010

2) Complaint that the applicant ’ s appeal against the detention order of 16/03/2010 was considered only 13/05/2010

30/10/2015

3,500

3,400

16831/11

07/02/2011

Viktor Aleksandrovich ZAGORODNIKOV

02/03/1963

Shkitskiy Aleksey Vladilenovich

Irkutsk

22/01/2016

04/04/2016

3,750

3,200

75605/11

14/11/2011

Aleksey Borisovich TEMELIDI

06/07/1969

22/01/2016

21/03/2016

4,600

4,000

35009/12

07/05/2012

Vladimir Alekseyevich MAROCHKIN

01/01/1973

Myynova Yuliya Yuryevna

Volgograd

22/01/2016

14/03/2016

2,850

2,500

41355/12

06/06/2012

Mariya Sergeyevna TROFIMOVA

07/09/1983

Semkin Vladimir Borisovich

Tyumen

30/10/2015

19/04/2016

3,000

2,600

67459/12

20/09/2012

Aleksey Mikhaylovich SHUMILKIN

13/04/1982

22/01/2016

3,800

3,200

81857/12

27/11/2012

Maksim Anatolyevich TAVOLZHANSKIY

01/01/1970

Fomin Mikhail Anatolyevich

Moscow

22/01/2016

29/03/2016

3,500

3,100

13832/13

19/02/2013

Ruslan Viktorovich TELKOV

21/10/1980

30/10/2015

16/02/2016

1,200

1,000

56979/13

29/08/2013

Dzhitender Kumar SINGLA

01/06/1972

22/01/2016

22/03/2016

1,950

1,800

21135/15

15/04/2015

Dmitriy Viktorovich KLIMENKO

29/06/1972

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

15/01/2016

1,900

2,100

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant