CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s8521797B { width:5.28%; 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 } .s96913B96 { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s29FFDB06 { width:9.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6EB18CD8 { width:10.08%; 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 } .sE7F636FF { width:14.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s382DCD86 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3252B540 { width:18.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11B63CA0 { width:11.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7DADBE78 { width:12.3%; 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 } .sF9A7AF07 { width:5.28%; 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 } .s4875EBFF { width:7.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA7F229B7 { width:9.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26C19356 { width:10.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE29A60B5 { width:14.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC7364FC0 { width:11.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7EAC7A30 { width:18.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7BE0E9BD { width:11.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA745783F { width:12.3%; 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 DOLGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 7369/09 and 7 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   12 October 2017           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dolgov 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 Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 September 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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     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.” 7.     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 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28   November 2013, 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 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.     Some applicants submitted complaints which also raised issues under the Article 13 of 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 Sergey Babushkin v.   Russia , no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no.   7369/09, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     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 matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 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, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no.   5993/08, 16 October 2014, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no.   16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), 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.   7369/09 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 of the Convention 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 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting 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 Number of inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade 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]     7369/09 02/12/2008 Sergey Vladimirovich Dolgov 01/01/1974 Polozova Anna Borisovna Moscow Correctional colony no.   UCh-398/15 14/10/2006 to 10/06/2010 3 years and 7 months and 28 days   2 m²     9,800     34580/16 10/05/2016 Andrey Ivanovich Onopriyenko 25/06/1966 Butrimenko Marianna Dmitriyevna Volgograd IK 9 the Volgograd Region 01/03/2010 to 01/04/2016 6 years and 1 month and 1 day 80 inmates 3 toilets overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air       5,000     44329/16 09/09/2016 Aleksey Mikhaylovich Petrov 14/05/1976     FKU IK-29 Kirov Region 12/03/2014 pending More than 3 years and 4   months and 27 days 200 inmates   overcrowding, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to shower, outside toilets Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,800     45603/16 30/09/2016 Denis Valeryevich Naslednikov 21/02/1981     FKU IK-36 Krasnoyarsk Region 30/04/2014 pending More than 3 years and 2   months and 26 days 115 inmates 1.3 m² overcrowding, lack of living space, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,500     57720/16 20/09/2016 Roman Nikolayevich Petrov 05/04/1978     IK-11 Bor 15/11/2010 pending More than 6 years and 8   months and 11 days 135 inmates 1.4 m² infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,800     65299/16 27/10/2016 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich Gribkov 21/07/1966     IK-1 Nizhniy Novgorod 10/11/2012 to 18/10/2016 3 years and 11 months and 9 days 130 inmates 3 m² 6 toilets lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities   5,000     66889/16 07/11/2016 Sergey Mikhaylovich Khrushchev 18/11/1981     UG-42/1 Arkhangelsk 12/09/2014 pending More than 2 years and 10 months and 14 days 1.6 m² overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   7,300     73764/16 19/11/2016 Denis Pavlovich Shulga 24/11/1981     IK-7 Tula Region 22/05/2013 to 05/08/2016 3 years and 2 months and 15 days 1.5 m² 10 toilets lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to shower Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.