THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 65606/16 Mikhail Igorevich AVDEYEV against Russia and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President, Dmitry Dedov, Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

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 follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during transport. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention, as indicated in the appended table below. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications in that part (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

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

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part covered by the unilateral declarations of the Government.

Mr Avdeyev (application no. 65606/16) and Mr Izotov (application no. 30224/18) also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 in so far as they concern the inadequate conditions of detention during transport, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law, as indicated in the table annexed below, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Declares the remainder of applications nos. 65606/16 and 30224/18 inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 2 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

65606/16

28/10/2016

Mikhail Igorevich AVDEYEV

1989Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

18/11/2020

1,000

4835/18

28/12/2017

Rafik Arturovich PETROSYAN

1986Petrosyan

Lusine Radikovna

Stavropol

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention in IZ-26/1 Stavropol from 02/08/2016 to 16/01/2020; 2,3 sq. m., overcrowding, lack of individual sleeping places, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.

07/10/2020

12,500

30224/18

14/06/2018

Dmitriy Vladimirovich IZOTOV

1982Mezak

Ernest Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport

18/11/2020

1,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants