1. A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicants complained, among other matters, about poor conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and those of their transport.
4. The applications have been communicated to the Government.
A. Joinder of the applications
5. Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.
B. The complaints concerning inhuman or degrading conditions of detention and transport
6. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and – for one applicant – those of prison transport amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. By letters submitted on different dates, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
8. By the above declarations, the Russian authorities acknowledged that the applicants were detained, and MrKudashkin transported, in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.The Government stated their readiness to pay the following amounts to the applicants as just satisfaction:4,090 euros (EUR) to MrZhizhin, EUR 5,250 to MrMukhametov, EUR 4,090 to MrTryastsin, EUR 1,500 to Mr Kudashkin, EUR 9,250 to MrZhentliyev, EUR 4,285 to MsSuslova, EUR 10,125 to MrKhramtsov, EUR 7,875 to MrAvchinnikov, EUR 7,750 to Mr Razuvayev, EUR 1,500 to MrPetukhov, and EUR 4,870 to Mr Razzhivin.
The remainder of the declaration in each case read as follows:
“The authorities therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking of the case out of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.
This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
9. The applicants were invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations, if they so wished.
10. By their separate letters of various dates, some applicantsrejected the Government’s offers in whole or in part. Some of them expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were too low, whereas others insisted that the Court should examine their other complaints. As regards the applicants who did not submit any comments in reply, the Court is satisfied that they received a copy of the Government’s declarations.
11. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. In particular, Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court 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”.
12. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
13. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (see TahsinAcar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
14. The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian pre-trial remand centres (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002‑VI), it has found a violation of Article 3 on account of similar conditions of detention in more than ninety cases raising comparable issues. Most recently, the Court has adopted a pilot judgment concerning the structural problem of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012). It follows that the complaints raised in the present applications are based on the clear and extensive case-law of the Court.
15. As to the complaint about the inhuman and degrading conditions of MrKudashkin’s transport,the Court has found a similar violation inmore than twenty cases against Russia(see, among many other authorities,Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May2012, Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 128-136, 9 October 2008 and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 110-120, ECHR 2005‑X (extracts)). Having regard to the recurrent nature of this grievance, the Court finds it to be the subject of its well-established case-law.
16. Turning next to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government did not dispute the allegations made by the applicants and explicitly acknowledged that the conditions of their detention and transport had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
17. As to the intended redress to be provided to the applicants, the Government have undertaken to pay them certain amounts of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses. Even if the method of calculation employed by the Russian authorities in respect of the conditions-of-detention complaints did not correspond exactly to the guidelines established by the Court in the pilot judgment (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 172), what is important is that the proposed sums are not unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 105, ECHR 2006‑V). The Government have committed themselves to effecting the payment of those sums within three months of the Court’s decision, with default interest to be payable in case of delay of settlement.
18. The Court therefore considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of these cases in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicants’ detention and transport. As the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the implementation of the judgments concerning the same issues, the Court is also satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention (Article 37 § 1 in fine) does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the case. In any event, the Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the applications to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (seeJosipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).
19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in the part concerning the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and the conditions of transport.
C. The other complaints
20. Some applicants also raised additional complaints with reference to various Articles of the Convention and its Protocols.
21. Having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols in that part of their applications.
22. It follows that the remainder of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declarations concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Conventionand of the modalities 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 in so far as they concerned the complaints about inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penitentiary facilities and the conditions of MrKudashkin’stransport;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
AndréWampach KhanlarHajiyev Deputy Registrar President