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

Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro

THIRD SECTION
DECISION

Application no. 41917/06
Batyr Dzhorakulovich ROZYYEV against Russia
and 19 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 March 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, and the applicants’ replies to these declarations,

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 Government submitted 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 other provisions of the Convention (see appended table). 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 informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations.

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 Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of these parts of the applications.

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, as well as the other complaints listed in the appended table and covered by the Government’s declarations.

Some applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence and having regard to the fact that the friendly settlement agreements have covered the main legal questions raised in the present applications, 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 or, as concerns application no. 41917/06, there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014 with further references),

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention and, for application no. 41917/06, left without further examination.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law listed in the appended table and covered by the friendly settlement;

Holds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in application no. 41917/06 and declares the remainder of the remaining applications inadmissible.

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

Liv Tigerstedt                                                   Alena Poláčková
Deputy Section 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 acceptance Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[i]

1. 41917/06

31/07/2006

Batyr Dzhorakulovich Rozyyev

22/09/1970

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna

Strasbourg

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – detention in a correctional colony in the Vladimir Region between 12/12/2006 and 16/10/2009,

 

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention ,

 

Art. 5 (5) – lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention

13/10/2015 26/02/2016 13,675
2. 54786/16

06/09/2016

Vladimir Rudolfovich Gorskiy

02/05/1983

 

 

11/05/2017 19/09/2017 4,675
3. 21658/17

07/03/2017

Sergey Ivanovich Tkachenko

18/12/1983

 

 

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

 

12/10/2017 05/12/2017 7,000
4. 32429/17

21/06/2017

Aleksey Nikolayevich Tsvetkov

25/03/1975

 

 

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

 

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 04/02/2017 van, overcrowding, inadequate temperature

 

16/01/2018 09/03/2018 5,750
5. 34809/17

14/04/2017

Yuriy Vladimirovich Rakh

06/09/1982

Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna

St Petersburg

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 12/10/2017 13/12/2017 9,750
6. 34897/17

25/04/2017

Mubariz OrudzhOgly Mamedov

19/01/1972

 

 

12/10/2017 07/12/2017 4,090
7. 53384/17

18/07/2017

Eldar Suyundikovich Esbolganov

10/06/1994

Golub Olga Viktorovna

Suzemka

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 16/01/2018 01/03/2018 5,000
8. 53739/17

15/07/2017

Samit Sayfiyevich Tashmatov

01/03/1961

Yezhov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich

Velikiy Novgorod

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

 

Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Nevskiy District Court ofSt Petersburg until 21/03/2017 (convicted).

16/01/2018 02/03/2018 9,000
9. 53763/17

06/07/2017

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Shalamov

09/12/1976

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 16/01/2018 12/02/2018 1,000
10. 56244/17

03/08/2017

Nuritdin Zayirovich Kurbanov

15/10/1974

Magomedova Roza Saidovna

Moscow

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 20/03/2018 09/05/2018 2,214
11. 58908/17

10/09/2017

DmitryyIgorevich Smokvin

23/08/1989

Magomedova Roza Saidovna

Moscow

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – Detention order of 02/03/2017. Appeal lodged on 04/03/2017. Appeal hearing on 27/03/2017,

 

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

20/03/2018 09/05/2018 5,850
12. 68016/17

30/08/2017

Mikhail Alekseyevich Martynov

13/09/1988

Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna

St Petersburg

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

 

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention following the quashing of the trial judgment by the appeal court on 05/12/2014 and authorisation of detention on remand. Release on 21/03/2017

20/03/2018 01/06/2018 10,000
13. 73461/17

29/09/2017

Ilya AlekseyevichYegorov

18/12/1986

Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna

St Petersburg

 

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 20/03/2018 01/06/2018 12,825
14. 74178/17

29/09/2017

Islam Rusanbekovich Albogachiyev

22/11/1990

Nevzorov Dmitriy Gennadyevich

St Petersburg

Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – during the 34 hearings in total he was put in the metal cage. Verdict of the Smolensk Regional Court, 29/03/2017. 15/05/2018 13/07/2018 10,000
15. 78882/17

31/10/2017

Andrey Yuryevich Glukhov

22/10/1978

 

 

15/05/2018 12/07/2018 2,095
16. 82756/17

20/11/2017

Vladimir Borisovich Dereberya

09/11/1973

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The domestic courts failed to examine “speedily” the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 16/07/2018 19/09/2018 5,500
17. 83335/17

12/11/2017

Konstantin Yuryevich Gavrilov

26/02/1994

Korobeynikov Grigoriy Anatolyevich

St Petersburg

15/05/2018 04/07/2018 11,477
18. 2229/18

11/12/2017

Sergey Mikhaylovich Vidyakin

11/03/1982

 

 

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention – 16/07/2018 18/09/2018 2,600
19. 3742/18

23/12/2017

Pavel Vladimirovich Zykov

03/04/1983

Vorotyntsev Dmitriy Sergeyevich

Rostov-na-Donu

16/07/2018 17/09/2018 2,460
20. 4536/18

21/12/2017

Roman Viktorovich Firsov

17/06/1983

 

 

16/07/2018 04/09/2018 7,380

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *