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 } .s26C198CE { width:3.56%; 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 } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8A349C12 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4493BBF7 { width:14.42%; 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 } .sEC0F4CD9 { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D94AE9F { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA38C12E2 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A95F125 { width:12.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9A291BE { width:9.62%; 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 } .s9695F57 { width:3.56%; 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 } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s57BBE496 { width:10.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D97E42E { width:14.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68739EDA { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27D0360D { width:20.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6423D807 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96EC09CF { width:12.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D64228E { width:9.62%; 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 CHIBOTAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 72221/11 and 9 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 Chibotar 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 under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They 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.     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 v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 108, 22 May 2012 and Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no.   5993/08, §§   38-45, 28 November 2013. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no.   47129/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention regarding the conditions of his detention in SIZO-1 in the town of Tomsk from 19 August 2015 to 3 February 2016. 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 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. 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 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.   47129/16 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 Domestic award (in euros) Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     72221/11 15/12/2009 Andrey Viktorovich Chibotar 28/05/1984 IK-10 Yekaterinburg 04/04/2011 to 20/11/2012 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 17 day(s) 207 inmate(s) 1.9 m² 7 toilet(s) 12 sinks, lack of privacy in toilet, walks for 5-6 times a day for 15 minutes each in a yard of 40 sq.m., inmates infected with tuberculosis   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,000     433/13 19/11/2012 Viktor Ivanovich Samoylov 20/08/1965 IK-7 Valuyki Belgorod Region 28/12/2006 to 13/04/2015 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s) 230 inmate(s) 1.3 m² 4 toilet(s) poor food quality, dim electric light on 24/7, poor quality of bed linen and bedding, three urinals and one functioning sink, no hot water, regular cold water cut-off, weekly shower for 5 min. with 5 shower heads, small walking yard, toilet without flushing system, lack of fresh air and ventilation, damp premises   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 12,300     51988/14 04/07/2014 Sergey Grigoryevich Onishchenko 15/10/1964 IK-30 Kungur Perm Region 15/12/2011 to 15/04/2014 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s) 130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s) 6 sinks, no hot water, no ventilation, lack of natural light, dim electric light, small walking yard of 6 sq.m., weekly shower with 10 shower heads/an hour, poor food quality   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     52515/14 16/12/2014 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich Okhotin 11/09/1978 IK-20 Lukoyanov Nizhniy Novgorod Region 24/07/2012 to 08/12/2014 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s) 200 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 4 toilet(s) 7 sinks, one urinal of 2.5 m., insufficient number of rooms for long visits – 9 rooms 66 euro judgment of the Lukoyanovskiy District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region dated 21/01/2014 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 4,900     53236/14 01/07/2014 Amangeldy Sebepovich Telyubayev 03/05/1977 IK-2/1 Solikamsk (transit cells) Perm Region 17/02/2014 to 25/02/2014 9 day(s)           IK-2/1 Solikamsk Perm Region 31/03/2014 to 07/04/2014 8 day(s) 2.2 m²                   2.2 m² not provided with an individual sleeping place, no ventilation, inadequate separation of squat toilet from the living area, dinner table in 1.7 m. from toilet, distance of 48 cm between sleeping places, poor condition of bedding, toiletries not provided, infestation with mice and bedbugs   not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates, no ventilation, inadequate separation of squat toilet from the living area, dinner table in 1.7 m. from toilet, distance of 48 cm between sleeping places, poor condition of bedding, toiletries not provided, infestation with mice and bedbugs     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 1,000     53537/14 11/07/2014 Roman Nikolayevich Girlya 11/10/1969 IK-30 Kungur Perm Region 25/02/2012 to 21/02/2014 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28 day(s) 130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s) 6 sinks, no hot water, no ventilation, lack of natural light, dim electric light, small walking yard of 6 sq.m., weekly shower for the brigade with 14 shower heads/an hour, poor food quality   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     63426/14 22/08/2014 Ural Sabiryanovich Khafizov 21/06/1970 IK-22 Kushmangort Perm Region 29/11/2012 to 30/03/2014 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)   overcrowding, lack of heating in autumn and winter, labour premises daily filled with smudge   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     47129/16 27/07/2016 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Medvedev 05/07/1981 IK-29 Primoskiy Krai 21/04/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s) 106 inmate(s) 1.7 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 6,300     49719/16 25/07/2016 Artur Igorevich Ignatovich 07/04/1982 IK-3 St Petersburg 19/05/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10 day(s) 300 inmate(s)   3 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention   7,800   1695/17 07/02/2017 Aleksandr Gennadyevich Bastrikov 09/08/1977 FKU IK-2 Shara-Gorokhon Zabaykalskiy Region 20/02/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s) 180 inmate(s) 1.6 m² overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 6,800     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.