FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 33945/05 Oleg Lvovich LEDENTSOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Linos -Alexandre Sicilianos , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2005,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 February 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Oleg Lvovich Ledentsov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1963 and is detained in Naberezhnyye Chelny . He was represented before the Court by Ms Ye. Gazizova , a lawyer practising in Naberezhnyye Chelny , Republic of Tatarstan .

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

The application was communicated to the Government.

By letter submitted on 17 February 2015, 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.

By the above declaration, the Russian authorities acknowledged violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 1 (c) and §§ 2-5, as alleged by the applicant, and stated their readiness to pay him 15,500 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction.

The remainder of the declaration provided as follows:

“ The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it from 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.

This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. ”

By letter of 30 March 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum mentioned in the Government ’ s declaration was too low.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-77/1 in Moscow amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention.

Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant also complained that his detention between 20 December 2004 and 20 February 2005 was unlawful, that the authorities failed to inform him about the reasons of his arrest and to promptly bring him before a judge in breach of Article 5 § 3. He further complained about delays in the examination of his appeals lodged against detention orders, his absence from one of the extension hearings and the lack of an enforceable right to compensation.

THE LAW

The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.

It also re iterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007 ).

The Court recalls that it has routinely found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in cases against Russia on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of applicants ’ pre-trial detention as well as violations of different aspects of Article 5 on account of various irregularities affecting this detention (see, among other authorities, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 , 10 January 2012; Lebedev v. Russia , no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59 and §§ 95-115, 25 October 2007; Garabayev v. Russia , no. 38411/02, §§ 101-02, 7 June 2007; and Chuprikov v. Russia , no. 17504/07 , §§ 96-101, 12 June 2014 ) . It follows that the complaints raised in the present application are based on the clear and extensive case ‑ law of the Court.

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 (see, among others, Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia , no. 22405/04 , 2 6 February 2015, Khodorkovskiy v. Russia , no. 5829/04 , 31 May 2011) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 29 October 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President