CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 février 2018

.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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 KOKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 67520/10 and 6 others - see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   22 February 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kokhanova 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 1 February 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 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 and the Government’s objection about the expiration of the six-month time-limit raised in relation to applications nos. 62271/14 and 63688/14 (see, for the definition of the “continuous situation” in conditions-of-detention cases, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , cited above, §§ 76-77), 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 dismisses the Government’s objections as unfounded and 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.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 Convention, given 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 , cited above, §§ 38-45. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   67520/10 and 59847/14 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the complaints 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 applications nos. 67520/10 and 59847/14 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 applications nos.   67520/10 and 59847/14 inadmissible;   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 22 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) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   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]     67520/10 17/10/2010 Marina Viktorovna Kokhanova 12/07/1967 IK-12 Zaozernoe Khabarovsk Region 06/04/2007 to 05/03/2015 7 year(s) and 11 month(s) 160 inmate(s) 0.9 m² 4 toilet(s) 3 sinks, no hot water, rusty running water with unpleasant smell, lack of drinking water - 2 litres per day per inmate, lavatory pans not separated from each other, no toilet flushing system, absence of doors between toilet, washroom and living area allows unpleasant odour to permeate the living area, no ventilation or fresh air, dim electric light, weekly shower for 1 hour for two brigades (more than 300 inmates), floor and tables in shower and washing room are covered with slime and walls with fungus, poor food quality, no sanitary cleaning, no shoes for winter provided.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.     18,300     59847/14 06/10/2014 Mikhail Veniaminovich Chernyayev 30/11/1986 IK-2 Shara-Gorokhon Zabaykalskiy Region 15/03/2012 Pending. More than 7 year(s)   and 4 month(s) and 27 day(s)   2.5 m² Overcrowding, lack of natural light and fresh air, no ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, poor condition of bedding and bed linen, no toiletries and disinfectants provided, no hot water, irregular running water supply, infestation with mice, woodlice and other insects, poor food quality, not provided with warm seasonal clothes and shoes. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15,000     62271/14 26/08/2014 Vyacheslav Sergeyevich Pankov 11/06/1969 IK-5 Lepley Republic of Mordoviya 25/06/2010 Pending. More than 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s) 130 inmate(s) 1-2 m² Toilet in outhouse, 4 sinks, no hot water, walls covered with fungus, roof leak, lack of natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation with mice, rats, cockroaches and spiders, sleeping places block fire exits, poor food quality, inmates infected with contagious diseases, no individual tableware, one sink and unsanitary conditions in the canteen, no running water, unsanitary conditions in labour premises.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15,300     63688/14 01/09/2014 Eduard Valeryevich Shcherbunov 28/07/1973 IK-5 Lepley Republic of Mordoviya 27/05/2010 Pending. More than 7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s). 140 inmate(s) 1-2 m²   Overcrowding, passage path between sleeping places less than 70 cm, 5 functioning sinks, no hot water, lack of drinking water, lack of natural light and fresh air, no ventilation, infestation with mice, rats, spiders and cockroaches, co-detainees infected with contagious diseases, one set of bed linen for 16 months, poor state of bedding and bed linen, cold premises, not provided with warm seasonal clothes and shoes, poor food quality, unsanitary conditions in canteen, the canteen walls covered with mould and black slime, critical condition of the sewing premises – bricks falling out of the walls, squat toilet in outhouse, absence of toilet flushing system allows unpleasant odour to permeate the premises. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 15,300     19677/16 28/03/2016 Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Lyamzin 24/02/1983 IK-15 OIK-30 Norilsk 16/05/2011 to 30/09/2015 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s) 70 inmate(s) 1.4 m² 3 toilet(s) Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, long waiting time to visit toilet, toilet not available during the night, lack of washing facilities.           5,000     73599/16 22/11/2016 Vasiliy Borisovich Smygin 12/09/1967 IK-1 Kostroma Region 15/07/2004 to 30/10/2017 13 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 2 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, 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. 8,000     1050/17 12/12/2016 Anatoliy Viktorovich Ustyakin 18/06/1987 IK-5 Ivanov Region 23/12/2008 to 17/10/2016 7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 25 day(s) 105 inmate(s) 2.8 m² 5 toilet(s) Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, passive smoking, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of privacy for toilet. 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.