CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 juin 2017

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sE8EAB139 { width:196.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24238E10 { width:232.12pt; 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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s219784D7 { width:3.42%; 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 } .s62B64203 { width:7.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sABFC11AB { width:9.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s18E818F5 { width:8.7%; 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 } .s2B92B82D { width:12.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6EDAE7A5 { width:7.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s64FBB55 { width:24.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEB186BCE { width:13.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3310F964 { width:13.04%; 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 } .sA38A9E84 { width:3.42%; 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 } .s17C876C0 { width:7.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s88EA6366 { width:9.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s94971193 { width:8.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBC4101E5 { width:12.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s15D72D55 { width:7.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD4AB240F { width:24.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s67D3D224 { width:13.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAA572E2C { width:13.04%; 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 MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 48826/08 and 5 others - see appended list )     This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a   judgment of 26 March 2020.                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   22 June 2017         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 June 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 their detention. Some 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted unilateral declaration in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §   75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). III.     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: “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, Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). 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 Muršić , cited above, §§   122 ‑ 41, and Ananyev and   Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 59, 10   January 2012). 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. IV.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§   139 ‑ 49, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention), Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, §§ 203-248, 31   May 2012, regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters) and Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   100-19, 10 January 2012 pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in Russia). V.     REMAINING COMPLAINT 13.     In application no. 48826/08, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill-treatment by prison wards in IK-7 on 4 July 2007. 14.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4 of the Convention. VI.     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, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12   November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 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.   48826/08 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   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 22 June 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) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Inmates per brigade / Sq. m. per inmate / number of toilets 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]     48826/08 06/08/2008 Eduard Valentinovich Maznev 23/02/1977 Misakyan Mariya Gennadyevna Moscow IVS Kovrov Vladimir Region, IZ-33/1 Vladimir 04/09/2007 to 24/02/2011 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 21 day(s)   20 inmate(s) 1.8 m²     lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature     12,500     54526/10 30/06/2010 Viktor Valentinovich Novikov 04/09/1961     IZ-66/1 Yekaterinburg 13/04/2013 to 28/04/2013 16 day(s)   0.7 m²     no individual sleeping place – had to share one with inmates, dim electric light, lack of ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, inadequate condition of bedding and bed linen     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 1,000     43512/13 28/05/2013 Roman Aleksandrovich Ledenev 19/08/1984     IVS Gryazi 28/08/2012 to 16/04/2013 7 month(s) and 20 day(s)   0 toilet(s)     overcrowding, no toilet, no water, no walks, torn and dirty bedding, infestation with lice, dim electric light, no ventilation and fresh air   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - ,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   - 6,400     51512/13 08/05/2013 Oleg Valeryevich Shirokov 27/03/1981     IVS Krasnoturyinsk Sverdlovsk Region 15/10/2009 to 15/05/2012 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)               IZ-66/1 Yekaterinburg 15/03/2010 to 15/03/2013 3 year(s) and 1 day(s)         IZ-66/3 Nizhniy Tagil 15/03/2010 to 15/03/2013 3 year(s) and 1 day(s)           2 m²                           1 m²                 1 m²     poor condition of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air and ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, lack of natural light, dim electric light, squat toilet not separated from living area, dinner table and sleeping place located close to toilet (1-1.5 m.), no toiletries, food twice a day, poor food quality, no shower until 2010, lack of hot water in shower, poor quality of water (from heating pipes) and no light in shower, no tableware, no walks prior to April 2012, walks twice a week as of April 2012, inmates infected with HIV, hepatitis and tuberculosis     not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to sleep on the floor, dim electric light on 24/7, lack of natural light, inmates infected with hepatitis and HIV, lack of fresh air and ventilation         not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to sleep on the floor, dim electric light on 24/7, lack of natural light, inmates infected with hepatitis and HIV, lack of fresh air and ventilation Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 25,000     58203/13 27/08/2013 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Cherepakhin 13/02/1980 Korobov Pavel Anatolyevich Yekaterinburg IVS Rostov-on-Don 22/12/2011 to 25/12/2011 4 day(s)     IZ-61/3 Novocherkassk 26/12/2011 to 11/02/2014 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)   4 m² 1 toilet(s)         1.5 m² 1 toilet(s)     lack of (sufficient) natural light, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell         lack of (sufficient) natural light, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, lack of requisite medical assistance Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 11,100     68362/14 16/02/2015 Aleksey Gennadyevich Kudryavtsev 01/12/1961     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 22/05/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 5 day(s)   1.6 m²     no hot water, cold cells, no sitting places, toilet not separated from living area, dinner table located in 1.5 m. from toilet, no ventilation, cement floor, walls and ceiling covered with fungus, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, inmates infected with hepatitis and HIV, daily walk for 1 hour, weekly shower for 15 min., unsanitary conditions in shower   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 respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 18,200     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.