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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; 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 IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38347/16 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 Ivanov 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 complaints under Article 13 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.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 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 application no.   38364/16 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined the application 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 application 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 application no.   38364/16 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]     38347/16 13/05/2016 Aleksandr Yuryevich Ivanov   03/04/1983 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora IK-1 Syktyvkar 17/01/2014 to 10/01/2017 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s) 80 inmate(s) 1.7 m² lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,000     38364/16 13/05/2016 Vladimir Ivanovich Kamyshanskiy   05/02/1970 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora IK-1 Syktyvkar 22/11/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 27   day(s) 44 inmate(s) 2.4 m² 4 toilet(s) lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 6,000     38369/16 13/05/2016 Oleg Igorevich Popov   24/07/1987 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora IK-1 Syktyvkar 11/10/2015 to 10/01/2017 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) 48 inmate(s) 1.7 m² lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,800     45047/16 20/07/2016 Tokhtasyn Reyimov   03/08/1968 Golub Olga Viktorovna Suzemka IK-1 Bryansk 11/12/2013 to 28/10/2016 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 18 day(s)   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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 - 6,000     19161/17 18/02/2017 Aleksey Alekseyevich Kazakovtsev   23/08/1982     IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 15/05/2011 to 14/11/2016 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) 60 inmate(s) 1.5 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   5,000     19166/17 06/09/2016 Valentin Viktorovich Razuvayev   06/04/1981     IK-7 Tula Region 29/06/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s) 1.2-1.4 m² 10 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 9,800     22012/17 10/03/2017 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Klimov   20/09/1983     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 23/06/2014 to 11/10/2016 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 day(s) 110 inmate(s) 1.5 m² overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to running water 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.