TKACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (European Court of Human Rights)

Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro

THIRD SECTION
DECISION

Application no. 63868/12
Yevgeniy Viktorovich TKACHEV against Russia
and 12 other applications
(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
JolienSchukking, 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”).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 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 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 applicationsout 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, TahsinAcar 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, §§ 103-108, 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 (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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.

Liv Tigerstedt                                                   AlenaPoláčková
ActingDeputyRegistrar                                                 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 ofreceipt 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)[i]
1.	63868/12 06/09/2012	Yevgeniy Viktorovich Tkachev 08/08/1979			26/03/2018	–	1,000
2.	48387/17 06/09/2017	Aleddin Farkhadogly Kerimov 26/01/1965			21/05/2018	20/06/2018	1,000
3.	1359/18 07/12/2017	Roman Sergeyevich Shangareyev 24/02/1981		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about the poor conditions of transport	11/06/2018	27/07/2018	1,000
4.	4136/18 01/12/2017	Ruslan Mukhamedyanovich Afkhalimov 30/04/1973		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	09/06/2018	16/07/2018	1,000
5.	7960/18 09/01/2018	Ilya Anatolyevich Maslov 23/09/1971		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	19/09/2018	–	1,000
6.	7987/18 09/01/2018	Yuriy Vladimirovich Shurygin 01/04/1961			19/09/2018	20/11/2018	1,000
7.	11643/18 22/02/2018	Sergey Aleksandrovich Shevchenko 28/12/1992			26/09/2018	27/11/2018	1,000
8.	12796/18 26/02/2018	ArturIvanovich Gromov 08/08/1989			26/09/2018	–	1,000
9.	13242/18 05/03/2018	Sergey Gennadyevich Volgin 18/05/1987	Kovaleva Yana Viktorovna Kazan	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	09/10/2018	12/12/2018	1,000
10.	16768/18 15/03/2018	Denis Sergeyevich Kyzyurov 12/01/1983		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	09/10/2018	26/11/2018	1,000
11.	17123/18 21/03/2018	Aleksandr Valeryevich Meleshchenko 26/04/1983		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	09/10/2018	27/11/2018	1,000
12.	17587/18 15/03/2018	Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Bolkhovitin 22/02/1984		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	09/10/2018	08/01/2019	1,000
13.	22485/18 28/04/2018	Yevgeniy Vasilyevich Lipin 30/11/1979		Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – to complain about poor conditions of transport	16/10/2018	09/01/2019	1,000

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