ZAMOTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 
 
 
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49433/17
Ivan Andreyevich ZAMOTIN against Russia
and 14 other applications
(see appended table)
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 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 during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicants’ 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. 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 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 (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 during transport and other complaints under the well-established case-law listed in the appended table.
The applicant in application no. 19747/18 also complained about the poor conditions of his detention.
The Court has examined the complaints 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 application no. 19747/18 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 relating to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and to the other complaints under the well-established case-law, listed in the 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. 19747/18 inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 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]   
49433/17
30/06/2017
Ivan Andreyevich Zamotin
25/01/1985
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
27/03/2018
14/05/2018
1,000   
69132/17
14/08/2017
Yevgeniy Alekseyevich Khozyainov
28/11/1985
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
27/03/2018
01/06/2018
1,000   
71259/17
07/09/2017
Artem Gabitovich Gataulin
17/04/1977
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
27/03/2018
03/05/2018
1,000   
71570/17
28/08/2017
Aleksandr Serafimovich Kirseyev
30/07/1954
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
27/03/2018
17/05/2018
1,000   
81693/17
13/11/2017
Aleksandr Vladislavovich Bogdanov
17/09/1977
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
-
1,000   
82715/17
29/11/2017
Vladimir Nikolayevich Skoromets
15/10/1956
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
25/07/2018
1,000   
84529/17
27/11/2017
Aleksey Anatolyevich Panov
02/02/1980
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
19/07/2018
1,000   
84531/17
30/11/2017
Yuriy Yuryevich Morozyuk
17/11/1984
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
-
1,000   
562/18
04/12/2017
Intigam Gabib ogly Ramazanov
05/09/1979
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
13/07/2018
1,000 
3070/18
18/12/2017
Maksim Nikolayevich Sekretarev
02/06/1984
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
09/06/2018
03/08/2018
1,000 
3701/18
22/12/2017
Andrey Alekseyevich Zhukov
03/02/1983
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
17/09/2018
-
1,000 
7446/18
26/01/2018
Ivan Vasilyevich Shiryayev
25/08/1986
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
17/09/2018
13/11/2018
1,000 
7895/18
15/01/2018
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kiselev
30/09/1994
Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna
Kazan
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
17/09/2018
13/11/2018
1,000 
14223/18
01/03/2018
Anton Andreyevich Nelayev
05/07/1987
 
 
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
19/09/2018
12/11/2018
1,000 
19747/18
31/03/2018
Vyacheslav Viktorovich Shishkin
16/04/1969
Zvonkova Yelena Yuryevna
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport
 
02/10/2018
11/12/2018
1,000
 
[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy