CEDH, Cour (Troisième Section Comité), BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA, 6 octobre 2022, 26803/18

En anglais

Synthèse

  • Juridiction : CEDH
  • Numéro de pourvoi :
    26803/18
  • Dispositif : Struck out of the list
  • Date d'introduction : 8 juin 2018
  • Importance : Faible
  • État défendeur : Russie
  • Identifiant européen :
    ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1006DEC002680318
  • Lien HUDOC :https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-220688
Voir plus

Résumé

Vous devez être connecté pour pouvoir générer un résumé. Découvrir gratuitement Pappers Justice +

Suggestions de l'IA

Texte intégral

THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 26803/18 Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of: Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2018, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant's details are set out in the appended table. The applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention were communicated to the Russian Government ("the Government").

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. He responded, refusing the terms of the declaration. 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 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 (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (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 deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 161-65, 22 May 2012, and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 219-48, 31 May 2011). Noting the admissions contained in the Government's declaration 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 application (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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons

, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant's name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government's declaration Date of receipt of applicant's comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] 26803/18 12/04/2018 Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV 1968 07/11/2018 18/12/2018 500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.