FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 29993/06 Aleksandr Konstantinovich CHERNUKHIN against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 10 March 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 application lodged on 26 June 2006 ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Konstantinovich Chernukhin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Rostov-on-Don . He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Yefimov , a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don .

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 applicant complained, among other matters, about poor conditions of his pre-trial detention and lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect, about the delay in the execution of the appeal court ’ s order for release and about lack of enforceable right to compensation for unlawful deprivation of liberty, as well as about equality of arms in the civil proceedings.

4 . Those complaints have been communicated to the Government.

A . The complaints concerning inhuman or degrading conditions of detention , right to liberty, access to court and effective domestic remedies

5 . The applicant complained that the conditions of his pre-trial detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention , which provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

He further complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the unlawful delay in releasing him and the alleged lack of any compensation. The relevant parts of Article 5 of the Convention read as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ...

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”

Lastly, the applicant complained that the civil proceedings that he had initiated were conducted in breach of the equality of arms principle and thus the domestic courts denied him an effective access to court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

6. By letter of 16 October 2014 , the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised in the application and communicated to them . They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

7 . By the above declaration , the Russian authorities acknowledged violations of the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention in the remand centre and lack of effective domestic remedies in that respect, under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention on account of the delay in the execution of the appeal court ’ s order for the applicant ’ s release and lack of any compensation in that respect and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of lack of an effective access to court and a breach of the equality of arms principle. The Government stated their readiness to pay the applicant 13,000 euros (EUR) .

The remainder of the declaration 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.”

8 . By letter of 5 December 2014 , the applicant expressed the view that the Court should examine his other complaints, which had not been communicated to the Government.

9 . 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”.

10 . 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.

11 . To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration 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).

12 . The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian pre-trial remand centres (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), it has found a violation of Article 3 on account of similar conditions of detention in a series of cases raising comparable issues. The Court also adopted a pilot judgment concerning the structural problem of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention in Russi an penitentiary facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42 525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012) . It follows that the applicant ’ s complaint under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention is based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.

13 . As to the complaint s under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court has already held in many cases against Russia that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness (see , among many others, Belov v. Russia , no. 22053/02 , §§ 90-91, 3 July 2008 ; Shukhardin v. Russia , no. 65734/01, §§ 84-85, 28 June 2007 ; and Korchuganova v. Russia , no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006). Moreover, it has found violations of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention in cases where deprivation of liberty was not effected in accordance with a “procedure prescribed by law” (see Chuprikov v. Russia , no. 17504/07 , § 98, 12 June 2014; Abashev v . Russia , no. 9096/09 , § 42, 27 June 2013; and Nolan and K. v. Russia , no. 2512/04, § 104 , 12 February 2009 ). The Court also found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases in which the domestic courts had deprived the detainees of the opportunity to present their civil case s effectively in breach of the equality of arms principle (see, for example, Gryaznov v. Russia , no. 19673/03 , § § 42-61, 12 June 2012 ; Beresnev v. Russia , no. 37975/02 , § § 117-27 , 1 8 April 201; and Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02 , § § 204 ‑ 208, 27 May 2010 ). Accordingly, the Court considers that the relevant complaints raised by the applicant are based on the clear and extensive case ‑ law of the Court as well .

14 . Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration , the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the al legations made by the applicant and explicitly acknowledged violations of the Convention on several accounts (see paragraph 7 above).

15 . As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicant , the Government have undertaken to pay him a certain amount of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. The amount proposed is not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, § 172 , and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 105, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of this sum within three months of the Court ’ s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.

16 . The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present case in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrad ing conditions of the applicant ’ s detention , unlawfulness of his detention and lack of compensation for it, as well as lack of access to court and equality of arms . As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgments 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 these part s 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).

17 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrad ing conditions of the applicant ’ s detention , unlawfulness of his detention and lack of compensation for it, as well as lack of access to court and equality of arms .

B . The other complaints

18 . The applicant al so raised additional complaints with reference to , in particular, Article 6 of the Convention.

19 . 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 the application .

20 . It follows that the application in this part must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these r easons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the Government ’ s declaration concerning the applicant ’ s complaints about inhuman and degrad ing conditions of the his detention , unlawfulness of his detention and lack of compensation for it, as well as lack of access to court and equality of arms , 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 in so far as it concerned the complaints about inhuman and degrad ing conditions of the applicant ’ s detention , unlawfulness of his detention and lack of compensation for it, as well as lack of access to court and equality of arms ;

Declares t he remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 April 2015 .

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President