CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE6F1442 { width:204.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sABE7C65B { border:0.75pt solid #969696; border-collapse:collapse } .s30A925B6 { border-right:0.75pt solid #969696; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding:3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s1846CB43 { border-right:0.75pt solid #969696; border-left:0.75pt solid #969696; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding:3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .sC54B24C5 { border-left:0.75pt solid #969696; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding:3.88pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s5EC551C8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-right:0.75pt solid #969696; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB2758159 { border:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74024D4 { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-left:0.75pt solid #969696; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .s3A9AA2F1 { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-right:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFF1CCB8D { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-right:0.75pt solid #969696; border-left:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s248FA7FC { border-top:0.75pt solid #969696; border-left:0.75pt solid #969696; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 9150/05, 4307/08, 19070/08, 33463/08, 40928/08, 50139/08, 54919/08, 56523/08, 60244/08, 15616/09, 18437/09, 42124/09, 55689/09, 59733/09, 1607/10, 3936/10, 8298/10, 46398/10, 71197/11, 40631/12, 53963/12, 57932/12, 66725/12, 75430/12, 75718/12, 22168/13, 23402/13, 27657/13)                     JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   8 November 2016     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zadonskiy and Others v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in twenty-eight applications 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 sixteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS 4.     All the applicants were convicted by Russian courts and given custodial sentences. 5.     They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations. 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 that the conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading in breach 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.     The Government’s request for the case to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention 8.     The Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the cases out of its list. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and offered to pay a sum of money. 9.     The applicants rejected the Government’s settlement offer. 10.     Having studied the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government have acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right to the protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in comparable cases (see Yepishin v.   Russia , no.   591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014; Butko v. Russia , no.   32036/10, 12 November 2015, and Badretdinov and Others v. Russia , no. 28682/07 et   al., 19 July 2016). Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case. 11.     For the above reasons, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaint. B.     Admissibility 12.     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. C.     Merits 13.     The Government did not dispute the applicants’ factual submissions relating to the overcrowding in penitentiary facilities, a shortage of sanitary installations and their poor state of repair. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and   60800/08, §§   139 ‑ 165, 10   January 2012). It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings. 14.     In the leading case of Butko v. Russia (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In the light of the material submitted to it, the Court finds that the applicants had been detained in the conditions which were inhuman and degrading. 15.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT MR MIRONOV 16.     The applicant Mr Mironov (application no. 4307/08) further complained that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints about the conditions of detention, in breach of the requirements of Article   13 of the Convention which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 17.     The Court has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government in cases concerning inadequate conditions of an applicant’s detention and found them to be lacking in many regards. The Court has held, in particular, that the Government were unable to show what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or any other State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant’s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant’s personal situation alone (see, generally, the authorities cited in Ananyev and Others , § 99 and ‒ specifically with regard to correctional colonies ‒ Butko , cited above, §§ 43-47, with further references). 18.     Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court declares this complaint admissible and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint about the conditions of detention in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 19.     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.” 20.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see Sergey Babushkin (just satisfaction), Butko and Badretdinov , all cited above, and Dolgov and Silayev v.   Russia , nos.   11215/10 and   55068/12, § 30, 13   September 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums listed in the Appendix. 21.     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 the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention;   3.     Declares the applications admissible;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;   5.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Mr Mironov;   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 8 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX   Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Detained, from Detained, until Facility Award, euros 9150/05 02/05/2006 Sergey Mikhaylovich ZADONSKIY 08/02/1956 Lesnoy   03/07/2001 22/02/2006 IK-5 Mordoviya Repubic 14,800 4307/08 10/12/2007 Andrey Yuryevich MIRONOV 18/02/1987 Chaykovskiy   14/10/2006 18/06/2007 IK-38 Perm Region 5,000 19070/08 03/08/2008 Igor Oksanovich USOV 23/07/1956 Olovyannaya   07/10/2004 03/08/2008 IK-7 Zabaykalskiy Region 13,500 33463/08 16/01/2009 Yuriy Yuryevich STASYUK 16/05/1961 Moscow   01/06/2008 14/11/2008 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 5,000 40928/08 06/07/2008 Anatoliy Nikolayevich TIMOFEYEV 16/08/1955 Megra   28/08/2004 19/01/2012 IK-17 Vologda Region 15,000 50139/08 04/07/2008 Albert Kukurovich CHELIDZE 26/03/1965 Vorgashok   24/11/2006 15/12/2008 IK-8 Komi Republic 8,250 54919/08 26/01/2009 Efletdin Akhmedkhanovich BEDIRKHANOV 04/04/1965 Bor   15/05/2008 12/10/2008 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 5,000 56523/08 07/04/2009 Aleksandr Pavlovich SHCHERBAKOV 19/01/1975 Narimanov   28/02/2008 24/01/2010 IK-6 Astrakhan 7,750 60244/08 12/09/2008 Dmitriy Valeryevich MOYSYUK 29/01/1974 Nelidovo   15/09/2008 30/03/2012 IK-8 Tver Region 12,500 15616/09 13/04/2009 Aleksandr Nikolayevich POTAPOV 04/09/1969 Bataysk   15/12/2007 13/04/2009 IK-15 Rostov Region 6,000 18437/09 21/02/2009 Rais Nazifovich ALKIN 13/07/1959 Perm   08/10/2005 27/08/2008 IK-9 Perm Region 10,500 42124/09 28/08/2009 Gleb Yuryevich SMOLNIKOV 17/10/1988 Bataysk   18/10/2008 28/08/2009 IK-15 Rostov Region 5,000 55689/09 03/12/2009 Timur Albertovich GALEYEV 23/02/1978 Kazan   13/07/2009 01/09/2009 IK-19 Tatarstan Republic 5,000 59733/09 23/12/2009 Aleksandr Nikolayevich SINICHKIN 02/08/1980 Bataysk   04/12/2007 23/12/2009 IK-15 Rostov Region 8,000 1607/10 07/12/2009 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SINYANSKIY 04/10/1968 Novosibirsk   13/02/2008 03/03/2010 IK-18 Novosibirsk Region 8,000 3936/10 24/03/2011 Nikolay Anatolyevich NOVOSELTSEV 26/09/1972 Barabinsk   21/07/2010 24/01/2011 IK-10 Novosibirsk Region 5,000 8298/10 14/04/2010 Vladislav Petrovich DOVGAN 22/01/1974 Bataysk   12/05/2006 14/04/2010 IK-15 Rostov Region 13,750 46398/10 07/09/2009 Natalya Nikolayevna SVETLOVA 01/02/1952 Nizhniy Novgorod   20/04/2007 18/09/2009 IK-2 Nizhniy Novgorod 9,500 71197/11 26/10/2011 Leonid AKSENTE 11/02/1970 Chișinău   27/06/2011 16/04/2012 IK-6 Tver Region 5,000 40631/12 06/06/2012 Yuriy Vladimirovich LAGUNOV 26/09/1967 Uva   21/08/2010 16/03/2012 IK-5 Kirov Region 6,500 53963/12 30/04/2012 Eduard Sharimzyanovich KASFATOV 27/01/1970 Salavat   07/09/2010 14/08/2012 IK-29 Kirov Region 7,750 57932/12 24/07/2012 Viktor Vasilyevich VIDANOV 23/09/1960 Sorda   10/06/2011 22/04/2012 IK-3 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 5,000 66725/12 14/09/2012 Vadim Aleksandrovich TEREKHOV 28/12/1975 Voronezh   19/03/2010 23/03/2012 IK-3 Voronezh Region 8,000 75430/12 03/08/2012 Dmitriy Yuryevich LUZGIN 21/06/1968 Serpukhov   28/11/2011 14/01/2013 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 5,250 75718/12 08/11/2012 Artur Aleksandrovich KOSITSYN 15/05/1977 Nizhniy Tagil   03/10/2011 08/11/2012 IK-13 Sverdlovskiy Region 5,000 22168/13 26/02/2013 Artur Ruslanovich TEKEYEV 15/06/1984 Nizhniy Tagil   15/07/2012 26/02/2013 IK-13 Sverdlovskiy Region 5,000 23402/13 05/03/2013 Vladislav Vladimirovich PATRATIY 03/06/1975 Severnyy   19/10/2008 05/03/2013 High Security Prison in the Ulyanovsk Region 14,400 27657/13 01/09/2010 Aleksey Ivanovich BUSOV 05/09/1968 Kungur   01/12/2009 01/05/2010 OIK-2 / IK-1 Perm Region 5,000