CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 mars 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 A.K. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 7130/08 and 5 others - see appended list )                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   29 March 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.K. 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 8 March 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 7130/08 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no.   7130/08 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     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.” 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, Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić , cited above, §§   122   ‑ 141, and Ananyev and   Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 159, 10   January 2012). 9.     In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, 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. IV.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the 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 Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 100-119, concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about poor conditions of detention, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, pertaining to inadequate conditions of transport. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     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.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, § 172, 10 January 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     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.     Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 7130/08 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;   3.     Declares the applications admissible;   4.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   5.     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);   6.     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 29 March 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 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]     7130/08 08/01/2008   A. K. 27/12/1950 IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 03/09/2005 to 18/09/2007 2 year(s) and 16 day(s) 1.2 m² No partition between the lavatory and the living room, constant cigarette smoke, Insects/rats, no ventilation. Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van in St. Petersburg 03/09/2005-18/09/2007, 0.5   sq. m. per inmate and subsequent detention in the assembly cell in remand prison – 0.4 sq. m. per inmate. 10,700     32834/16 28/05/2016 Konstantin Sergeyevich Vetrov 12/06/1982 IZ-1 St Petersburg 23/12/2011 to 08/07/2013 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s)   IZ-5 St Petersburg 08/07/2013 to 22/11/2013 4 month(s) and 15 day(s)     IZ-1 St Petersburg 22/11/2013 to 17/12/2015 2 year(s) and 26 day(s)           overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food   overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food   overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 14,000     50530/16 17/08/2016 Marat Akhmedovich Magomedov 21/05/1982 IZ-1 Ivanovo 22/10/2015 to 26/04/2016 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)   4 inmate(s) 3 m² overcrowding, constant electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 3,200     50531/16 17/08/2016 Mukhamadsaid Makhmadrozikovich Raupov 20/08/1992 IZ-37/1 Ivanovo 31/03/2015 to 15/03/2016 11 month(s) and 16 day(s) 5 inmate(s) 3 m² overcrowding Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 5,000     52484/16 31/08/2016 Shamsiddin Sayfulloyevich Azizov 08/04/1985 IZ-37/1 Ivanovo 08/12/2014 to 22/03/2016 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 15 day(s) 7 inmate(s) 2.2-4.5 m² passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of ventilation Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 6,000     57926/16 05/12/2016 Dmitriy Leonidovich Neprizvanov 21/07/1981 FKUZ MSCh-59 FSIN, Hospital N2, Perm Region 16/04/2016 to 30/06/2016 2 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2 toilet(s) mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 1,700     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.