FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 10496/09 Oleg Vladimirovich MENSHIKH against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 7 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Julia Laffranque , Dmitry Dedov , judges , and Søren Prebensen , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

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

Having regard to the declaration s submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reaction to those declarations ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicants are Russian nationals whose names and dates of birth are specified in the appendix.

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

3. The applicants complained that their detention on remand had been unreasonably long or that it had not been based on relevant or sufficient reasons.

4. On 12 and 19 December 2013 the applicant s ’ complaints were communicated to the Government for observations.

5. By let ter of 9 April 2014 the Government informed the Cou rt that they proposed to make unilateral declaration s with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

6. In the declaration s , the Government acknowledged that all the applicants had been detained “without well-founded justification on the basis of the decisions rendered by the courts” which “did not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction:

(a) 3,120 euros (EUR) to Mr Menshikh f or his detention on remand “between 14 May 2008 and 7 December 2009”;

(b) EUR 6,320 to Mr Gresev for his detention on remand “between 28 December 2006 and 20 April 2011 ” ;

(c) EUR 2,000 to Mr Titov for his detention on remand “between 14 May 2010 and 12 May 2011 ” ;

(d) EUR 5,040 to Mr Makarov for his detention on remand “between 24 August 2010 and 5 September 2013 ”;

(e) EUR 1,900 to Mr Kasyanenko for his detention on remand “between 17 June 2011 and 27 April 2012 ”;

(f) EUR 1,700 to Mr Dulatov for his detention on remand “between 8 September 2011 and 7 June 2012” ;

(g) EUR 2,880 to Mr Murtazaliyev for his detention on remand “between 13 May 2011 and 15 October 2012 ” ;

(h) EUR 1,700 to Ms Derevenskikh for her detention on remand “between 29 March and 25 December 2012”;

( i ) EUR 1,700 to Ms Rogatneva for her detention on remand “between 29 March and 25 December 2012”;

(j) EUR 4,000 to Mr Franchuk for his detention on remand “between 5 June 2011 and 4 June 2013 ” ; and

(k) EUR 3,440 to Mr Abezin for his detention on remand “between 29 March 2012 and 25 December 2013”.

7 . The remainder of their declaration s 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.”

8. The applicants were invited to comment on the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, if they so wished. They submitted no comments in reply.

THE LAW

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

10. 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”.

11. 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 .

12. 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 , 18 September 2007 ).

13. The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the lengthy detention on remand in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, §§ 104-121 ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), it h as found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on a ccount of an excessively lengthy detention on rema nd without proper justification in more than eighty cases against Russia (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 , § 200, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.

14. 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 that their detention on remand had been in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention .

15. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them certain amounts of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. 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.

16. T he Court is satisfied that the amount s of compensation proposed are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar Russian cases ( see Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia , no. 41716/08 , 29 May 2012; and Kislitsa v. Russia , no . 29985/05 , 19 June 2012).

17. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases . 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 issues , 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 contin ue the examination 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 Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006 and Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

18. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications,

Takes note of the terms of the Government ’ s declarations concerning the applicants ’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities 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.

Søren Prebensen Khanlar Hajiyev Acting Deputy Registrar President

Appe ndix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

10496/09

21/01/2009

Oleg Vladimirovich MENSHIKH

11/10/1967

Voronezh

Andrey Vyacheslavovich BAKHLIN

15732/10

20/02/2010

Viktor Nikolayevich GRESEV

22/01/1961

Ufa

11600/11

18/01/2011

Aleksandr Georgiyevich TITOV

18/06/1968

Moscow

4417/12

16/03/2012

Vladimir Aleksandrovich MAKAROV

09/03/1989

Verkhniy Chov

13049/12

01/02/2012

Ilya Ivanovich KASYANENKO

27/10/1972

Kurgan

Fedor Grigoryevich RYBAK

17431/12

07/02/2012

Ali Kharisovich DULATOV

25/06/1969

Srednyaya Yelyuzan

Nazhiya Dzhafyarovna SUBOCHEVA

74409/12

18/10/2012

Magomed Murtazaliyevich MURTAZALIYEV

30/05/1982

Lesnoy

23082/13

04/02/2013

Zhanna Yuryevna DEREVENSKIKH

27/04/1962

Ustye

Aleksandra Aleksandrovna ROGATNEVA

24/06/1990

Ustye

26885/13

23/03/2013

Vyacheslav Valeryevich FRANCHUK

08/07/1986

Ufa

41892/13

20/05/2013

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich ABEZIN

14/06/1975

Verkhnyaya Pyshma