CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 40122/16 and 9 others - see appended list )               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 December 2017         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kotov 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 23 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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In applications nos.   40122/16, 41822/16, 61993/16, 8320/17, 8325/17 and 9999/17, the applicants also submitted complaints 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, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia). IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     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. 14.     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 applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications 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 14 December 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]     40122/16 06/06/2016 Vadim Viktorovich Kotov 23/10/1977 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka IK-1 Bryansk 20/07/2015 to 12/07/2017 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)   lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of requisite medical assistance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 8,000     40508/16 24/07/2013 Vitaliy Maratovich Buntov 14/12/1976     IK-12 Perm Region 01/10/2012 to 28/05/2016 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s) 200 inmate(s) 0.9-1 m² lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack or insufficient quantity of food   13,000     41113/16 11/07/2016 Pavel Vladimirovich Gudkov 26/01/1972 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 01/06/2013 to 06/06/2016 3 year(s) and 6 day(s) 2 m² mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, 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, lack of privacy for toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food   5,000     41822/16 08/07/2016 Maksim Vasilyevich Rogoza 30/06/1985     IK-2 Zabaikalsky Region 11/11/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s) 1.3-1.5 m² lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 9,000     61993/16 26/12/2016 Nikolay Igorevich Grebennikov 15/10/1970     К 231/7-28 Kirov Region 15/10/2013 pending More than 4 year(s) and 7 day(s) 2.3 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, inadequate temperature Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,500     72722/16 27/10/2016 Vladimir Anatolyevich Rudykh 01/10/1970     IK-56 Yekaterinburg Region 02/11/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   8,000     8320/17 12/01/2017 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Artamonov 26/08/1982 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 29/05/2002 to 28/11/2016 14 year(s) and 6 month(s) 100 inmate(s) 0.6 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     8325/17 14/01/2017 Nikolay Nikolayevich Lebedev 01/08/1970 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 27/10/2011 pending More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s) 50 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 2 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,500     9999/17 13/01/2017 Aleksey Nikolayevich Artamonov 16/01/1956 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region Unit 4 17/09/2012 to 16/09/2016 4 year(s) 2 m² poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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   10191/17 09/01/2017 Yevgeniy Leonidovich Payusov 21/02/1978     IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region 05/02/2010 pending More than 7 year(s) and 8   month(s) and 17 day(s) 90 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 5 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, bunk beds, lack of or insufficient natural light   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.