CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 KLEMENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 56110/09 and 8 others - see appended list )                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   8 February 2018             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Klemenkov 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 18 January 2018, 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 detention during their transport. 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 detention during their transport. 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 detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v.   Russia, no.   6847/02, §§   118 ‑ 120, ECHR   2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v.   Russia, no.   42239/02, §§   53 ‑ 60, 31   July 2008). 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 Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   122 ‑ 141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 159, 10   January 2012). 8.     In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC] , no. 5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 108, 22 May 2012, 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 and the Government’s objections, including that concerning the failure by the applicants in applications nos. 56110/09 and 5269/17 to comply with the six-month time-limit to raise their complaints with the Court, 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 during their transport 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 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 M.S. v. Russia , no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10   July   2014, pertaining to absence of domestic remedies for a complaint about the poor conditions of transport. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   58029/16 and 79681/16 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 13.     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 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia , nos.   17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 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 during transport 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.   58029/16 and 79681/16 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   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 8 February 2018, 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 during transport) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Means of transport Start and end date 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]     56110/09 20/05/2009 Aleksandr Alekseyevich Klemenkov 15/01/1976 Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krsanoyarsk van 21/05/2012 to 26/06/2012 0.5 m²     overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light     1,000     20715/16 05/04/2016 Gennadiy Sergeyevich Afanasyev 08/11/1990 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar train 17/09/2015 to 18/09/2015     train 22/09/2015 to 23/09/2015     train 04/10/2015 to 05/10/2015 0.5 m²           0.4 m²           0.6 m²     overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell   overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of drinking water   overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of drinking water   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - 1,000     58029/16 19/09/2016 Yuriy Valeryevich Mamontov 29/03/1968     train, van 12/06/2016 to 12/06/2016     0.5 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air     1,000     63593/16 13/10/2016 Gennadiy Aleksandrovich Guziyev 15/08/1984 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora van, train 01/02/2016 to 01/08/2016 0.3 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light     1,000     73369/16 22/11/2016 Anton Yuryevich Dyatkinskiy 28/06/1984 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora van, train 23/08/2016 to 24/08/2016   van, train 07/09/2016 to 08/09/2016 0.29 m²         0.29 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air     1,000     79613/16 06/12/2016 Yuriy Vladimirovich Sobolev 22/11/1985 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora train, van 07/11/2016 to 08/11/2016   train, van 27/11/2016 to 28/11/2016 0.29 m²         0.29 m²     lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light     lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air   1,000     79681/16 14/12/2016 Aleksey Viktorovich Abramov 12/01/1978     van 31/05/2016 to 04/04/2017 0.3 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 1,000     3765/17 29/12/2016 Vadim Yegorovich Anufriyev 05/06/1989 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora van, train 14/10/2016 to 19/12/2016 0.29 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air     1,000     5269/17 12/12/2016 Mark Aleksandrovich Bronovskiy 10/05/1979 Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich St Petersburg van 01/07/2016 and 21/07/2016   0.2 m²     overcrowding     1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.