Kondyrev and Others v. Russia

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4076/14 Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV against Russia and 19 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Gilberto Felici, 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 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. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions 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 (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 the part covered by the unilateral declarations (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 the other complaints under the well-established case-law (see appended table), as covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations.

The applicant in application no. 4743/18 also complained about another period of his detention in poor conditions. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government’s objection concerning the six-month time-limit related to that complaint, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint about conditions of his detention between 10 June 2007 and 4 March 2014 was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law, as 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. 4743/18 inadmissible.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Date of birth

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]

4076/14

23/12/2013

Oleg Yuryevich KONDYREV

1964

Art. 8 (1) - allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations - The applicant served his sentence in IK-30 Perm Region which was several thousand km away from his family members who lived in the Rostov Region.

28/06/2019

5,800

69191/17

04/09/2017

Maksim Ivanovich KAYUSHKIN

1988

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

03/12/2019

7,650

4289/18

15/05/2018

Yevgeniy Valeriyevich REYKO

1985

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

16/12/2019

7,875

4743/18

29/03/2018

Vasiliy Vladimirovich ANANIN

1974

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

03/12/2019

5,625

11817/18

07/11/2018

Aleksandr Vladimirovich BOLSHAKOV

1969

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

14/01/2020

4,500

29908/18

06/08/2018

Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich YEMELYANOV

1982

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

14/01/2020

7,200

40333/18

23/07/2018

Viktor Vasilyevich LATYSHEV

1980

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

5,400

47417/18

18/09/2018

Aleksandr Vladislavovich BOGDANOV

1977

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transport from 27/03/2018 to 28/03/2018 and 27/05/2018, train and van, severe overcrowding; restricted access to toilet.

15/10/2019

10/12/2019

8,000

47817/18

24/09/2018

Yevgeniy Anatolyevich POLYAKOV

1985

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

04/12/2019

5,850

53378/18

24/10/2018

Anton Nikolayevich SERGIYEVICH

1983

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

4,500

54902/18

14/01/2019

Oleg Ravilyevich GALEYEV

1984

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

14/01/2020

6,300

58015/18

19/11/2018

Vladislav Yevgenyevich MAKSIMOV

1986

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

6,250

2980/19

18/12/2018

Aleksey Petrovich GALKIN

1977

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

14/01/2020

5,850

4473/19

27/12/2018

Aleksey Anatolyevich SEMENOV

1968

15/10/2019

19/11/2019

6,250

5052/19

21/12/2018

Aleksandr Viktorovich PAKHMUTOV

1981

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

14/01/2020

4,500

5061/19

26/12/2018

Aleksandr Andreyevich KHASHCHEV

1983

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

28/01/2020

6,250

5875/19

27/12/2018

Petr Viktorovich FILIPPOVSKIY

1981

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

03/12/2019

4,500

8404/19

25/01/2019

Radik Renatovich AKHMETOV

1984

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

21/01/2020

09/03/2020

4,500

18046/19

14/03/2019

Dmitriy Anatolyevich MAKOVETSKIY

1976

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

05/12/2019

4,950

28352/19

07/05/2019

Denis Nikolayevich SHAROV

1986

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.

15/10/2019

05/12/2019

4,500

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