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 } .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 } .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 MERZLYAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 58812/16 and 6 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 Merzlyak 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 applicants were represented by Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. 3.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     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 6.     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 7.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention in a correctional colony during 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.” 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, 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). 9.     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. 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. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants also submitted complaints 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 13.     In applications nos.   78152/16 and 78506/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications 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 in a correctional colony during periods indicated in the appended table 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 applications nos.   78152/16 and 78506/16 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 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   Facility start and end date Duration Inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate 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]     58812/16 24/09/2016 Aleksandr Vladimirovich Merzlyak 19/04/1977 IK-1 Kostroma Region 21/01/2011 to 10/09/2016 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 21 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.5 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease   5,000     65619/16 07/11/2016 Aleksandr Andreyevich Kotov 14/01/1967 IK-1 Kostroma Region 28/07/2015 to 04/05/2017 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.5-2 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - lack of any effective remedy in Russia 6,500     78152/16 26/11/2016 Dmitriy Yuryevich Babin 21/03/1980 IK-1 Kostroma Region 01/05/2015 to 07/03/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1.5 m² Overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food   6,000     78506/16 09/12/2016 Mikhail Yevgenyevich Trifanov 13/11/1991 IK-1 Kostroma Region 19/07/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 18   day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.6 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,800     18999/17 21/02/2017 Aleksandr Valeryevich Gorkin 26/10/1982 IK-1 Kostroma Region 21/04/2016 to 20/01/2017 9 month(s) 2 m² mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 3,900     19013/17 20/02/2017 Sergey Aleksandrovich Vasilyev 10/11/1979 IK-1 Kostroma Region 16/12/2015 to 15/02/2017 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) 2 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     20467/17 03/03/2017 Oleg Yuryevich Doronov 25/10/1968 IK-1 Kostroma Region 06/10/2015 to 05/10/2016 1 year(s) 100 inmate(s) 0.6 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease 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.