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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 A.C. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 46966/14 and 7 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 A.C. 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 OF WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (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.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     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.” 13.     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. 14.     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 applications admissible;   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 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]     46966/14 27/09/2014   A.C. 22/12/1979     IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 17/09/2012 to 25/07/2014 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 9 day(s)   IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 24/08/2014 to 07/11/2015 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 15 day(s)   IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 06/12/2015 to 05/10/2016 10 month(s)   IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 28/11/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s) 3.8-7 m²         3.8-7 m²         3.8-7 m²         3.8-7 m² no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food, no sewage system in the detention facility, inmates use a bucket as a lavatory pan and then take it outside daily to a cesspool from which an awful odour spreads, the same facility as in the case of Gorbulya v. Russia (no. 31535/09, 6   March 2014); Romanenko v. Russia (no.   34310/12, 7 February 2017), lack of or insufficient electric light   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 15,300     14076/16 30/08/2016 Andrey Fedorovich Avdulov 21/12/1977     IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 14/09/2008 pending More than 9 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 7 day(s) 14 inmate(s) 2.3 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air   10,000     45716/16 03/10/2016 Vladimir Nikolayevich Lanochkin 25/07/1972     IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 22/11/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 30 day(s) 135 inmate(s) 1.6 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 9,300     57406/16 13/09/2016 Vladimir Igorevich Ovadenko 28/01/1987     IK-1 Syktyvkar 23/08/2013 pending More than 4 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.8 m² 4 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 10,000     60447/16 07/10/2016 Leonid Vasilyevich Petrov 10/03/1982 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 10/07/2015 to 09/10/2017 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) 100 inmate(s) 2 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water   8,300     60737/16 11/10/2016 Aleksey Vitalyevich Zverev 10/06/1977 Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krsanoyarsk IK-16 Krasnoyarsk Region 23/08/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)   2 m² 4 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower   9,800     51002/17 03/07/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich Yesin 16/04/1971     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 26/02/2012 pending More than 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 26 day(s)   135 inmate(s) 1.4 m² 6 toilet(s) overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack or insufficient quantity of food     7,500     53613/17 14/07/2017 Vadim Valeryevich Gogin 29/05/1961 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 27/12/2014 to 04/07/2017 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 8 day(s)   100 inmate(s) 2 m² inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, poor quality of food 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.