FIRST SECTION

DECISION

This version was rectified on 3 February 2016

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

Application no . 46320/07 Maksim Sergeyevich KOKORIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 25 August 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Erik Møse , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates listed in the appendix,

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 fol lows :

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix.

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

3. The applicants complained, among other matters, about poor conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and courthouses, inadequate conditions of transport between facilities and defects of pre-trial detention.

4. The applications have been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

5. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.

B. The complaints concerning the conditions of detention or transport or alleged defects of the criminal proceedings

6 . The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities or their transport between facilities. The applicants Mr Kovalev and Mr Klimnenko complained that certain aspects of their detention were in breach of the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.

7. By letters submitted on different dates , the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue s raised by the application s . They further requested the Court to strike the application s out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8 . By the above declarations, the Russian authorities acknowledged that the violations of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction: 6,250 euros (EUR) to Mr Kokorin , EUR 4,480 to Mr Yesin , EUR 3,500 to Mr Anchugov , EUR 4,100 to Mr Belov , EUR 3,700 to Mr Ibatulin , EUR 4,160 to Mr Kovalev , EUR 5,750 to Mr Vereshchagin, EUR 6,175 to Mr Goryunkov , and EUR 7,440 to Mr Klimnenko .

9. The remainder of the declaration in each case read as follows:

“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘ any other reason ’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

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 Convention. 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.”

10. T he applicants did not accept the Government ’ s offer.

11. The Court reiterates 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. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.

12. It also recalls 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.

13. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration s in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see 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).

14 . S ince its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and an excessive length of pre-trial detention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), the Court has found similar violations in many cases against Russia which concerned inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in police wards (see Khristoforov v. Russia , no. 11336/06 , 29 April 2010 ), remand prisons (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 , 10 January 2012 ) and correctional colonies (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08 , 28 November 2013 ), as well as conditions of transport (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03 , §§ 103 ‑ 108 , 22 May 2012 ) . The Court has already found violations in many cases where the formalisation of an applicant ’ s status as an arrested crime suspect was delayed without reasonable explanation (see, most recently, Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no. 47837/06 , 18 September 2014 ). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.

15 . Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and explicitly acknowledged the violations of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention .

16 . As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. Even if the proposed sums do not correspond exactly to the awards the Court made in similar cases, they are not unreasonable in absolute terms or in relation to the duration of the applicants ’ detention . The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of those sums within three months of the Court ’ s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.

17. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the se case s in the part concerning the above-mentioned complaints . As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgment s concerning the same issue s , the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine ) does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the case. In any event, the Court ’ s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the applications to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).

18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list in the part concerning the above-mentioned complaints .

C. The other complaints

19 . Some applicants also raised further complaints about the conditions of their detention in other facilities, the conditions of their transport between facilities or alleged defects in the civil or criminal proceedings, to which they were parties.

20. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of their applications.

21. It follows that the applications in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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 under Article s 3 and 5 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike a part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 September 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

46320/07

26/09/2007

Maksim Sergeyevich KOKORIN

25/02/1977

Novodvinsk

30282/08

03/04/2008

Aleksandr Andreyevich YESIN

31/05/1958

Sorda

51457/08

01/08/2008

Sergey Borisovich ANCHUGOV

05/10/1971

Moscou

54871/08

29/07/2008

Pavel Aleksandrovich BELOV

03/07/1981

Tver

60324/08

17/09/2008

Rafael Ruslan ovich [1] IBATULIN

04/06/1983

Vyborg

Marina Aleksandrovna BELINSKAYA

23952/09

04/04/2009

Boris Aleksandrovich KOVALEV

09/09/1978

Tomsk

32071/09

08/11/2010

Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN

03/06/1989

Kochubeyevskoye

38993/09

19/11/2012

Sergey Nikolayevich GORYUNKOV

20/02/1972

St Petersburg

55508/09

16/09/2009

Dmitriy Vladimirovich KLIMNENKO

13/01/1975

Shara-Gorokhon

30362/12

20/01/2012

Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN

03/06/1989

Kochubeyevskoye

[1] . Rectified on 3 February 2016: the text was “Rafael Rustamovich”.