49433/17, ZAMOTIN AND OTHERS v. ROSJA - Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Orzeczenia sądów
Opublikowano: www.echr.coe.int

Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka z dnia 4 kwietnia 2019 r. 49433/17

UZASADNIENIE

Wstęp

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0404DEC004943317

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:

Uzasadnienie faktyczne

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.

Uzasadnienie prawne

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.

Sentencja

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 Tigerstedt

Alena Poláčková

Acting Deputy Registrar

President

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

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

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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

5.

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

6.

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

7.

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

8.

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

9.

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

10.

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

11.

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

12.

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

13.

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

14.

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

15.

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.