CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s219AC2B9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.3pt; text-align:left } .sC6726B7D { width:162.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF GASANOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 54866/08)             JUDGMENT             STRASBOURG     16 October 2014         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gasanov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 54866/08) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov (“the applicant”), on 29 July 2008. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms O. Druzhkova, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 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.     On 23 September 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov, was a Russian national, who had been born in 1979 and lived in Vyshniy Volochek. 5.     On 20   April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug ‑ related offences. 6.     During several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, the applicant was detained in the police ward (IVS) of Vyshniy Volochek in the Tver Region. He claimed, in particular, that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition. 7.     On 29   January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence. II.     PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 8 .     By letter submitted on 20 June 2012, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They acknowledged that Mr Gasanov had been “detained in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay him 5,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction. 9.     By letter of 24 August 2012 the applicant’s representative notified the Court of Mr Gasanov’s acceptance of the terms of the Government’s declaration. 10.     In a further letter of 25 September 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that on 5 September 2012 the applicant had died and that Ms V. Pavlova and Ms L. Semyonova, the applicant’s grandmother and aunt respectively, intended to pursue his application before the Court. 11.     On 31 October 2012 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases on account of the applicant’s death. THE LAW I.     AS TO THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEATH OF THE APPLICANT 12.     Before proceeding to the other issues, the Court must first establish whether Ms Pavlova and Ms Semyonova are entitled to pursue the application originally introduced by the applicant who died on 5 September 2012. 13.     The Government submitted that the application should be struck out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 of the Convention, as the applicant’s complaint of inadequate conditions of detention was closely linked to the person of the applicant and did not seem to raise issues of general interest. They insisted that a further examination of the applicant’s claims would therefore be unreasonable. 14.     The Court recalls that the death of an applicant does not automatically bring the proceedings before the Court to an end. The applicant’s heirs or close family members who express such a wish may pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Karner v. Austria , no.   40016/98, § 22, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX) provided they meet a number of criteria developed in the Court’s case-law. 15.     A detailed analysis of these criteria in relation to conditions-of ‑ detention cases are set out in the recent judgment Oleg Zhuravlev v.   Russia (no. 50149/11, §§   12-18, 10 July 2014), where the Court found that close relatives of an applicant may pursue his complaint under Article   3 of the Convention even after his death. 16.     Ms Pavlova and Ms Semyonova being the applicant’s next-of-kin, the Court finds no reason to depart from its findings in the Oleg Zhuravlev judgment. It considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires a continuation of the examination of the application and that the conditions for striking the case out from the list of pending cases, as defined in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, have not been met. It therefore rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of the list and accepts that Ms   Pavlova and Ms Semyonova may pursue Mr Gasanov’s application. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the police ward Vyshniy Volochek where he was detained during several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, were inhuman and degrading in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Admissibility 18.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 19.     The Government have acknowledged the violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 8 above). 20.     Having regard to the applicant’s factual submissions and the Government’s acknowledgement, the Court considers that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the police ward Vyshniy Volochek between July 2006 and May 2008 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 21.     The applicant further complained about various breaches of his Convention rights during the criminal proceedings against him. In the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that these grievances do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects them as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 22.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 23.     The applicant claimed EUR 15,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. 24.     The Government proposed the applicant EUR 5,000 as just satisfaction under this head, which he accepted before his death. 25.     In view of the above, the Court awards EUR 5,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. This sum, plus any tax that may be chargeable, shall be paid to the applicant’s next-of-kin, Ms Pavlova and Ms Semyonova. B.     Costs and expenses 26.     The applicant did not claim any costs or expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head. C.     Default interest 27.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides that the applicant’s grandmother, Ms Pavlova, and aunt, Ms   Semyonova, may pursue the application;   2.     Declares the complaint regarding the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the police ward Vyshniy Volochek during several periods between July 2006 and May 2008 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay Ms Pavlova and Ms Semyonova jointly, within three months from the date of the judgment, EUR   5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent state at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Søren Prebensen   Khanlar Hajiyev Acting Deputy Registrar   President