VETVITSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 
 
 
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11383/17
Aleksandr Viktorovich VETVITSKIY against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see appended table)
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 April 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, 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 were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 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 acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. 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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 (see, for example, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
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 (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 as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and other complaints under the well-established case-law insofar as they are covered by the unilateral declarations (see the appended table).
The applicant in application no. 11383/17 also raised another complaint about the conditions of his detention during a period not referred to in the unilateral declaration of the Government.
The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application no. 11383/17 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 and other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), 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 application no. 11383/17 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 May 2019.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident


 
 
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
 
Representative’s name and location
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
 
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]   
11383/17
30/01/2017
Aleksandr Viktorovich Vetvitskiy
29/03/1984
 
 
 
22/01/2018
17/03/2018
7,250   
20147/17
07/06/2017
Aleksey Vladimirovich Nikolayev
19/03/1981
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –
23/01/2018
09/03/2018
5,000   
43228/17
23/05/2017
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Ustinenko
28/07/1978
 
 
 
23/01/2018
08/03/2018
5,000   
61294/17
10/08/2017
Aleksey Vladimirovich Derezyak
13/02/1977
Korchuganova Natalya Vladimirovna
Moscow
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
22/01/2018
-
5,000   
61664/17
11/08/2017
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Drachuk
03/03/1970
Butrimenko Marianna Dmitriyevna
Volgograd
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
22/01/2018
09/03/2018
5,000   
80305/17
11/11/2017
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Leontyev
03/08/1972
 
 
 
22/05/2018
25/09/2018
4,500   
82495/17
10/11/2017
Sergey Vladimirovich Semenin
04/09/1977
 
 
 
22/05/2018
16/07/2018
5,500   
4242/18
20/12/2017
Maksim Vladimirovich Vitenko
29/07/1988
 
 
 
23/07/2018
18/09/2018
4,500   
4769/18
15/12/2017
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Volkov
07/11/1976
 
 
 
23/07/2018
-
4,500 
6804/18
23/01/2018
Dzheykhun Iskanderovich Babayev
29/04/1981
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
23/07/2018
01/10/2018
4,500 
8010/18
10/01/2018
Vadim Borisovich Zenkov
26/03/1983
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
14/09/2018
-
4,500 
11554/18
19/02/2018
Maksim Sagitovich Akhmedeyev
03/05/1984
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
09/10/2018
03/12/2018
4,500 
12038/18
19/02/2018
Igor Mikhaylovich Nesterov
04/04/1965
 
 
 
09/10/2018
05/12/2018
4,500 
13629/18
10/03/2018
Anton Nikolayevich Veselyev
16/09/1985
 
 
 
04/10/2018
20/11/2018
4,500 
18148/18
31/03/2018
Andrey Ivanovich Mokeyev
11/08/1967
 
 
 
31/10/2018
02/01/2019
4,500
 
[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy