CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sD5195560 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD8737946 { width:4.82pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3B9B45E1 { width:177.27pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A253A10 { width:190.77pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEDF32997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9B2EDA5A { width:3.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA6F73038 { width:9.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9F205219 { width:11.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBF076320 { width:9.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s33EAFEB4 { width:15.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA5344ECF { width:6.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEAB5F07E { width:18.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD080128 { width:12.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BEA525B { width:13.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s5D0010CF { width:3.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEC48FB58 { width:9.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF28EFF0C { width:11.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s93B53758 { width:9.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC1209A { width:15.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s58218FAE { width:6.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAF0DE26D { width:18.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s270287DB { width:12.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8C70E65A { width:13.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         THIRD SECTION       CASE OF MUZYCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 54675/12, 76168/12, 56974/13, 10613/14, 18259/14, 36650/14, 12127/15 and 22190/15 )             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 October 2016       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Muzychenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 3.     Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations submitted in certain cases, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kud ła   v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §§   90 ‑ 94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and   60800/08, §§   139 ‑ 165, 10   January 2012). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v.   Lithuania , no.   53254/99, §§   39, 7   April 2005, and Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§   145 ‑ 147 and 149). 9.     In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§   54 ‑ 64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012; Ananyev and Others v. Russia , cited above, § 119; and Dirdizov v.   Russia, no. 41461/10, §§     108-111, 27 November 2012. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§   169-174, and Butko v. Russia, cited above , § 68), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     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 to join the applications;   2.     Rejects the Government’s request to strike certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;   3 .     Declares the applications admissible;   4.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   6.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     54675/12 13/07/2012 Aleksandr Nikolayevich MUZYCHENKO 27/09/1971     IVS Gvardeyskiy District Kaliningrad Region 20/02/2012 to 21/02/2012 2 day(s)   1.4 m²     Tuberculosis-infected inmates in the cell, poor lighting, no individual sleeping place, no ventilation, no outdoor exercises.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     76168/12 01/11/2012 Serik Kanatkaliyevich ULZHATAYEV 02/12/1988 Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan IZ-30/2 Narimanov Astrakhan Region 26/12/2011 to 21/05/2012 4 month(s) and 26 day(s)                               IZ-30/1 Asktrakhan 21/05/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s)   2.1 m²                                       2.3 m²     The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place, lack of ventilation, cells cold in winter and hot up to 50 degrees Celsius in summer, infestation with bedbugs, spiders, cockroaches, mosquitoes and mice, lack of separation of toilet from living area, dinner table located close to toilet, dim electric light on 24/7, cement walking yards of 15-20 sq.m., daily walk for 30 minutes, weekly shower for 10-15 minutes, shower with cement floor and ceiling; walls covered with fungus, insufficient number of shower heads.     The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place, lack of ventilation, cells cold in winter and hot up to 50 degrees Celsius in summer, infestation with bedbugs, spiders, cockroaches, mosquitoes, mice and rats, lack of separation of toilet from living area, dinner table located close to toilet, dim electric light on 24/7, cement walking yards of 15-20 sq.m., daily walk for 30 minutes, weekly shower for 10-15 minutes, shower with cement floor and ceiling; walls covered with fungus, insufficient number of shower heads.   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 20,800     56974/13 12/08/2013 Aleksey Ivanovich BUSOV 05/09/1968     IZ-59/1 30/12/2013 to 05/05/2014 4 month(s) and 6 day(s)   1.5 m²     No ventilation, lack of individual sleeping place in certain cells, lack of light, no heating in disciplinary cells.     5,000     10613/14 07/03/2014 Aleksandr Valeryevich MEDVEDEV 24/03/1978     IZ-70/1 Tomsk 19/08/2013 to 23/09/2013 1 month(s) and 5 day(s)   1.25 m²     Cell n o 260 measured 10 sq. m, 8 sleeping places for 7 to 8 inmates, metal beds rusty and dilapidated, bedding dirty and worn-out, cell infected with bed-bugs, lice and cockroaches. Inmates not provided with cleaning products, cell had one window which was covered with metal bars and could not be opened, no air conditioning system; cell was damp, stuffy and dark inside. The applicant had limited access to natural light and fresh air. Passive smoking, detainees had to wash their clothes in the cells, creating excessive humidity. Lavatory pan just 0.5 meters away from the table, separated from the living area by a partition less than one meter-high. Poor quality of water, food scarce and of poor quality, shower once every seven to ten days, for which they were afforded between five and ten minutes, the shower room was dirty.     5,000     18259/14 30/10/2014 Denis Vladimirovich LAVRENTYEV 13/07/1984     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 04/02/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 day(s)   1.5 m²     Mould on the walls, humidity, concrete floor, no ventilation, no hot water, passive smoking, lavatory pan in the cell not separated from the living area, around-the-clock light in the cell, poor quality of food, court yard too small and without benches, guards open and search all the food sent by the detainees’ relatives.   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport 16,600     36650/14 14/08/2014 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich SOROKIN 13/04/1988     IZ-47/ St Petersburg 31/03/2013 to 30/04/2014 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 1 day(s)   2 m²     From 31 March 2013 till 15   April 2013 applicant was detained in cell n o 340-A measuring 8 sq. m and housing 4 persons. Toilet near the table. One shower per week.   Two weeks later the applicant was confined in cell n o 353 which was similar to the previous one.   Two weeks after that he was confined in cell n o 287 which was similar to the previous one.   In the end of November 2013 he was confined in cell n o 614 which was two square larger than the previous one.   From the end of January 2014 till 30 April 2014 he was confined in cell n o 259 where there was no hot water.     5,300     12127/15 05/02/2015 Ivan Petrovich SAFONOV 08/10/1969     IVS Plesetskiy District of the Arkhangelsk Region 15/09/2014 to 18/09/2014 4 day(s)   2 m²     Toilet facilities out of order, no chairs or benches, no ventilation, passive smoking, no radio or TV set, rats and insects in the cell, food of poor quality.       5,000     22190/15 22/07/2015 Aleksey Mikhaylovich SHATALOV 11/03/1982     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 29/11/2014 to 16/06/2015 6 month(s) and 19 day(s)   1.75 m²     No ventilation, humidity, poor lighting, lack of potable water, no partition between the lavatory and the living area, 50 minutes daily outdoor exercise.     5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.