CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; 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 } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s64FC8A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:3pt } .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 GORSHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12639/17 and 6 others - see appended list )               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 June 2018           This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.     In the case of Gorshkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 May 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, 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 insofar as they are laid down in the attached table 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 complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of 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 Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 38-45. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   27931/17 and 28598/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 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, 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.   27931/17 and 28598/17 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as set out in the appended table;   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 June 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková 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]     12639/17 03/02/2017 Aleksandr Borisovich Gorshkov 12/06/1986 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma 12/08/2016 to 11/01/2017 5 month(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.9 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature.   2,500     24702/17 16/03/2017 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Tsygankov 01/07/1978 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-4 Kostroma Region 21/04/2016 to 10/03/2017 10 month(s) and 18 day(s) 110 inmate(s) 1.5 m² Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, inadequate temperature, constant electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 4,700     25277/17 21/02/2017 Yuriy Aleksandrovich Klionovskiy 03/04/1979 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg IK-7 St Petersburg 05/04/2013 to 11/01/2017 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1.2 m² 2 toilet(s) No or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 5,000     25567/17 17/02/2017 Artem Vladimirovich Kovtun 30/06/1981 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg IK-4 St Petersburg Region 21/02/2013 to 02/11/2016 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s) 150 inmate(s) 2 m² 3 toilet(s) Lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 5,000     27845/17 30/03/2017 Aleksandr Gennadyevich Kostrov 12/07/1978 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region (OT-15/1) 24/03/2016 to 10/03/2017 11 month(s) and 15 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 0.6 m² Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.   5,000     27931/17 28/03/2017 Andrey Aleksandrovich Lebedev 01/02/1961 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 03/10/2016 to 23/11/2016 1 month(s) and 21 day(s) 105 inmate(s) 2 m² 4 toilet(s) Lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 1,400     28598/17 30/03/2017 Aleksandr Nikolayevich Zagorodniy 21/11/1972 Mudarisov Rif Minetdinovich Nefteyugansk IK-11 Khanti-Mansi Autonomous Region 19/09/2014 Pending. More than3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2 day(s) 20 inmate(s) 2.3 m² Passive smoking, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature.   8,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.