CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 30 novembre 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sDA3273A1 { height:231.3pt } .sE8934522 { 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 } .sE324E089 { height:74.85pt } .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 RESIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 30428/14 and 8 others – see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   30 November 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Resin 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 9 November 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.     In applications nos. 30428/14, 33972/16, 65613/16 and 3496/17 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28   November 2013, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in Russia). IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In application no. 2605/17, 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. 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. 2605/17 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 30 November 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 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]     30428/14 06/03/2014 Andrey Igorevich Resin 29/07/1974 Molostov Andrey Aleksandrovich Karagayskiy IK-56 Ivdel Sverdlovsk Region 25/05/2012 to 15/05/2014 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21 day(s)                 IK-56 Ivdel Sverdlovsk Region 06/08/2014 to 17/12/2016 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)   IK-56 Ivdel Sverdlovsk Region 04/01/2017 pending More than 9 month(s) and 4 day(s) 2.2 m²                         2.2 m²           2.2 m² no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, toilet not separated from the rest of cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of winter footgear, no or restricted access to shower; the same facility as in the case of Gorbulya v.   Russia , no. 31535/09, 6   March 2014         Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 15,000     33972/16 30/11/2016 Aleksandr Ivanovich Belousov 28/07/1978     IK-29 FKU OIK-5 Kirov Region 27/05/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s) 6 inmate(s) 2.5 m² poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, smelly cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of space in the cells, low temperature Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,800     65613/16 31/10/2016 Denis Fakhimzyanovich Sabirov 07/11/1982     IK-10 Sverdlovsk Region 02/07/2010 to 06/05/2016 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 5 day(s) 1.2-1.8 m² 7 toilet(s) lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     76412/16 11/12/2016 Denis Aleksandrovich Ivanov 27/07/1983     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 14/07/2014 to 03/02/2017 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 21 day(s) 1.5 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   5,500     2605/17 14/12/2016 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Androsov 17/09/1978     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk 09/11/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29   day(s) 125 inmate(s) 2.8 m² overcrowding, lack of clothes (non- provision of the second set), lack of winter clothes in conditions of Siberian winter, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air     7,500     3496/17 12/12/2016 Denis Nikolayevich Rassikhin 20/02/1980     IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 31/03/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 8 day(s) 120 inmate(s) 1.9 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention –   7,500     3534/17 15/12/2016 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Novikov 05/03/1990     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 16/09/2013 to 09/02/2017 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s) 2 m² overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease   5,500     5168/17 20/12/2016 Sergey Aleksandrovich Klimov 15/11/1971     IK-29 Kirov Region 04/02/2015 to 02/11/2016 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 30 day(s) 200 inmate(s) 1.7 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   5,000     5171/17 20/12/2016 Vladimir Radzhevich Nasimov 03/07/1980     IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 03/09/2012 to 29/11/2016 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) 140 inmate(s) 2.2 m² 6 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen   5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.