CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .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 } .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 STEPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 44388/17 and 3 others - see appended list )                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   28 June 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stepanov 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 7 June 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. In applications nos.   44497/17 and 60480/17 the 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: “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, as well as the Government’s objection concerning the six-month requirement in relation to application no. 60480/17, 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 rejects the Government objection of six months in application no.   60480/17, considering the applicant’s situation to be of a “continuous” nature (see Benediktov v. Russia , no. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007), and finds that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention as described in the appended table below 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.     In applications nos.   44497/17 and 60480/17, the applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. 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.   44497/17 and 63056/17, 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 the applications nos.   44497/17 and 63056/17 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints 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 28 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]     44388/17 25/05/2017 Stepan Sergeyevich Stepanov 03/08/1988     IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 15/04/2015 to 17/05/2017 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 3 day(s) 1.3 m² Overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet.   5,000     44497/17 13/06/2017 Natalya Vasilyevna Zhorzhesko 02/01/1974 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-8 Kostroma Region 24/08/2011 to 19/05/2017 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 0.6 m² Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 5,000     60480/17 04/08/2017 Yuriy Nikolayevich Lobynev 09/07/1987 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk IK-15 Norilsk 14/11/2011 to 22/12/2016 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 9 day(s)   IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region 22/12/2016 to 03/03/2017 2 month(s) and 10 day(s) 180 inmate(s) 0,25 m² 6 toilet(s)       220 inmate(s) 0,45 m² 5 toilet(s) Lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding;     Inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, poor quality of food. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention. 5,000     63056/17 14/08/2017 Grigoriy Vladimirovich Larionov 17/03/1966     IK-5 Kirov Region 15/11/2016 to 15/03/2017 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)           IK-5 Kirov Region 28/03/2017 to 03/08/2017 4 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1 m²                 1 m² No or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, overcrowding.   See above.   3,900     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.