Search
document

OKHAPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 15338/06, 18533/06, 42913/06, 10855/07, 23258/07, 47545/08, 49410/08, 49555/08, 7022/10, 51206/10, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-145674

Document date: June 17, 2014

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

OKHAPKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 15338/06, 18533/06, 42913/06, 10855/07, 23258/07, 47545/08, 49410/08, 49555/08, 7022/10, 51206/10, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-145674

Document date: June 17, 2014

Cited paragraphs only

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 15338/06 Andrey Vladimirovich OKHAPKIN against Russia and fifteen other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 17 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Julia Laffranque , 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 Government and the applicants ’ acceptance of their terms,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants 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, in particular, about the conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities , the conditions of their transport, and an excessive length of their detention on remand .

4. By letters submitted on various dates , the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained or transported in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention , and that the length of certain applicants ’ detention had been excessive in the light of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention . The Government stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction: 3 , 500 euros (EUR) to Mr Okhapkin, EUR 4 , 805 to Mr Rasskazov, EUR 4 , 090 to Ms Molkova, EUR 9 ,940 to Mr Maksimov, E UR 15 , 940 to Mr Ibragimov, EUR 4 ,500 to Mr Safarov, EUR 8 , 125 to Mr Deryugin, EUR 14 , 500 to Mr Inozemtsev, EUR 7 , 475 to Mr Belous, EUR 4 , 000 to Mr Fazlutdinov, EUR 4 , 200 to Mr Filippov, EUR 4 ,740 to Mr Kravchenko, EUR 5 , 750 to Mr Kundilovskiy, EUR 6 , 077 to Mr Ryzhkov, EUR 3 , 500 to Mr Sokolov, and EUR 4 ,675 to Mr Shestakov . The payment was to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, together with any costs and expenses incurred, as well as any tax that may be chargeable. It would be effected within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay within that period, the Government undertook 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. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

5. In their letters of different dates , the applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declarations.

THE LAW

6. 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.

7. The Court considers that the applicants ’ agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 9278/06, § 34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8243/08, 5 June 2012 ).

8. The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications.

9. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications,

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

15338/06

28/02/2006

Andrey Vladimirovich OKHAPKIN

10/09/1981

Severniy

18533/06

14/03/2006

Vladimir Valeryevich RASSKAZOV

03/11/1979

Schuya

42913/06

03/10/2006

Zinaida Nikiforovna MOLKOVA

07/11/1967

Cheboksary

Nikolay Anatolyevich MULYAKOV

10855/07

20/01/2007

Aleksandr Yuryevich MAKSIMOV

26/05/1969

Bor

Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN

23258/07

07/04/2007

Rushan Zubairovich IBRAGIMOV

07/01/1963

Astrakhan

Margarita Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA

47545/08

04/10/2008

Marufkhodzha Ismoilovich SAFAROV

17/06/1962

Ocher

Boris Ivanovich PONOSOV

49410/08

03/09/2008

Aleksandr Viktorovich DERYUGIN

21/09/1981

Zamishevo

Viktor Petrovich GAVRILENKO

49555/08

20/08/2008

Mikhail Yuryevich INOZEMTSEV

01/06/1983

Orenburg

7022/10

05/01/2010

Aleksandr Sergeyevich BELOUS

01/01/1981

Yekaterinburg

51206/10

17/06/2010

Ruslan Rustamovich FAZLUTDINOV

13/07/1985

Ivanayevo

5361/12

27/12/2011

Dmitriy Anatolyevich FILIPPOV

24/11/1985

Tomsk

9062/12

11/01/2012

Maksim Valeryevich KRAVCHENKO

21/12/1982

St Petersburg

17746/12

24/01/2012

Eduard Vitalyevich KUNDILOVSKIY

24/10/1977

Bataysk

20146/12

16/03/2012

Aleksandr Vladimirovich RYZHKOV

24/05/1983

St Petersburg

Aleksey Vladimirovich DOBRODEYEV

34302/12

14/12/2007

Vladimir Nikolayevich SOKOLOV

26/04/1957

Startsevo

59398/12

30/07/2007

Yuriy Gennadyevich SHESTAKOV

18/06/1979

Perm

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant