CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 mai 2017

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s460B86C9 { width:198.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s766D5A0D { width:3.46%; 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 } .s84388054 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3D484263 { width:10.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s94753806 { width:9.8%; 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 } .s5AFCE44B { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6BA5D364 { width:6.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6C72ECEF { width:15.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9BEEF8D5 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; 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 } .s2F0049F9 { width:3.46%; 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 } .s5EDC7B99 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4F6D646 { width:10.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF63A0CC3 { width:9.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA43E462F { width:7.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42B1CDD7 { width:6.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32CC572B { width:15.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E401780 { width:13.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 KAVALEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 55477/10 and 7 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   4 May 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kavalerov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2017, 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”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     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 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v.   Russia, no.   6847/02 , §§   118 ‑ 20, ECHR   2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v.   Russia, no.   42239/02, §§   53 ‑ 60, 31   July 2008). 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 (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v.   Lithuania , no.   53254/99, §§   36–40, 7   April 2005). 8.     In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 108, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     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 during their transport were inadequate. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In applications nos.   55477/10, 62920/10, 3420/14, 60833/14, 61841/14, 64767/14 and 65467/14 the 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 Idalov , cited above; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Lebedev v   Russia , no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007 (regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters and also concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention); Ananyev and Others (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-19, 10 January 2012, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia). IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINT 12.     In application no.   15017/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention. 13.     The Court observes that on 10 October 2011 the St Petersburg City Court acknowledged that the applicant’s detention had commenced on 21   September 2009. The Court further observes that the Russian law of tort explicitly provided for the possibility of filing a claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in cases of unlawful application of a preventive measure in the form of placement in custody. Therefore, the finding of the St Petersburg City Court entitled the applicant to claim damages from the State. By failing to pursue this remedy, the applicant has deprived the State of an opportunity to put matters right internally. It follows that this complaint in respect of the applicant must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 14.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Sayerov v. Russia [Committee], no. 33071/12, §   16, 17 January 2017) 17.     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.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the application no. 15017/12 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Means of transport Start and end date 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]     55477/10 31/08/2010 Yuriy Yuryevich Kavalerov 31/08/1979 Konin Vladimir Vladimirovich Kaliningrad transit cell 19/07/2010 to 20/07/2010     transit cell 18/10/2010 to 18/10/2010     van 30/12/2010 to 30/12/2010   1.7 m²           1.7 m²           0.3 m²     no windows, no fresh air or natural light, no ventilation, no food or water, not allowed to use toilet     no windows, no fresh air or natural light, no ventilation, no food or water, not allowed to use toilet     no seasonal clothing and heating in 43 degrees Cels. below zero, transported in handcuffs – metal burnt the skin because of the cold weather, lack of light   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - ,       Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - ,       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 6,500     62920/10 14/10/2010 Yanina Konstantinovna Smulskaya 16/08/1971     van 25/12/2009 to 06/12/2010     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places       Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 6,500     15017/12 20/01/2012 Vladimir Borisovich Kotov 20/12/1957 Tikhonova Lyubov Vladimirovna St Petersburg train 03/11/2011 to 24/11/2011   0.3 m²     overcrowding – a cage for 2 contained 15 inmates instead, dim electric light, lack of natural light, no water in toilet, no bedding and bed linen, the air heavy with cigarette smoke     5,000     3420/14 26/11/2013 Timur Said-Magomedovich Idalov 16/08/1967     transit cell, van 20/05/2013 to 29/11/2013   1.25 m²     no food, no possibility to use toilet, lack of sleep, no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, overcrowding   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 6,500     60833/14 07/04/2015 Aleksey Valeryevich Kuznetsov 22/03/1975     train 01/10/2014 to 09/10/2014   0.3 m²     not provided with warm seasonal clothes, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, restricted use of toilet – had to use plastic bottles instead   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     61841/14 19/08/2014 Aleksey Yuryevich Balashov 17/12/1987     train 19/03/2014 to 20/03/2014   0.4 m²     not provided with individual sleeping and sitting places – the applicant had to sit on the luggage during transportation, passage width of 47 cm, inmates infected with tuberculosis in its open form Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 5,000     64767/14 13/09/2014 Anna Nikolayevna Lozinskaya 13/01/1989 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar van 24/12/2013 to 01/04/2014   0.3 m²     multiple transfers in a single compartment of 0.3 sq.m.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 5,000     65467/14 18/09/2014 Valeriy Yuryevich Tokarev 17/04/1969 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar van 08/05/2013 to 18/03/2014   0.3 m²     about 70 transportations in solitary compartments of 0.3 sq.m.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.