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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sC1A90076 { width:3.54%; 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 } .sA648FB07 { width:7.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6D39A02A { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEF94CF7A { width:13.98%; 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 } .s7DADBE78 { width:12.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8E1E78C0 { width:24.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s859E3002 { width:10.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF33261A4 { width:16.98%; 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 } .s4850AD88 { width:3.54%; 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 } .s6A24725C { width:7.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5821A369 { width:10.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB704577A { width:13.98%; 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 } .s52888E5B { width:24.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s858B1BD7 { width:10.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s894AA5EE { width:16.98%; 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 YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 32795/16 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 Yegorov 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 complaints under Article 13 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 in the detention facilities and during the periods indicated in the appended table. 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 in the detention facilities and during the periods, indicated in the appended table, 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 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.   33543/16, the applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention during the period preceding 28 February 2014. However, the detention period does not form a continuous situation as it was interrupted by the applicant’s prolonged stay in another facility of which he did not complain (see Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, § 47, 6 March 2014). Therefore, the Court finds this complaint about the conditions of his detention before 28   February 2014 to be belated ( see Eskerkha nov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18496/16 and 2   others, § 31, 25 July 2017), given that the applicant only lodged his application with the Court on 15 May 2016. 13.     It follows that this part of application no. 33543/16 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     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. 16.     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, as well as 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.   33543/16 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   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]     32795/16 18/05/2016 Andrey Vladimirovich Yegorov 25/12/1987 IK-8 Ukhta, Komi 07/06/2014 to 22/11/2015 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 16 day(s) 1.1 m² 1 toilet(s) overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     33543/16 15/05/2016 Mikhail Yuryevich Mineyev 01/11/1975 IK-7 Kostroma region 28/02/2014 to 25/02/2016 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s) 120 inmate(s) 1 m² 3 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient natural light   5,000     44913/16 22/07/2016 Sergey Valentinovich Varentsov 26/02/1969 IK-1 Kostromskaya Region 18/08/2015 to 24/05/2016 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 120 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 3 toilet(s) no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, mouldy or dirty cell   4,300     45190/16 30/06/2016 Valeriy Pavlovich Shmelev 26/05/1960 IK-25 Kirovskiy Region 09/03/2016 to 30/03/2016 22 day(s) 8 inmate(s) 2 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 1,000     64785/16 28/10/2016 Yuriy Alekseyevich Belskiy 06/10/1970 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 27/01/2013 to 26/07/2016 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) 140 inmate(s) 2 m² 6 toilet(s) lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, inadequate clothing   5,000     65913/16 08/11/2016 Rustem Mintagirovich Ganiyev 20/03/1983 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 04/03/2013 to 18/10/2016 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s) 143 inmate(s) 1.5-1.6 m² 9 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, bunk beds, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   5,000     76874/16 21/11/2016 Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Kulik 12/08/1982 IK-29 Sorda, Kirov Region 15/06/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 11 day(s)   lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient electric light Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   7,300     76903/16 28/11/2016 Sergey Sergeyevich Ryabov 11/08/1980 IK-11 Bor, Nizhniy Novgorod Region 03/12/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 23 day(s) 130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 6 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,000     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.