CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s946186CA { height:1.6pt } .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 } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF PANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 42898/17 and 8 others ‑ see appended list )               JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 11 October 2018 and 5 February 2019 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court         STRASBOURG   20 September 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Panov 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 30 August 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: “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 also complained 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.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   69411/17 and 71196/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles 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.   69411/17 and 71196/17 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 20 September 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’s name Date of birth Representative’s 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]     42898/17 14/08/2017 Yuriy Nikolayevich Panov 14/08/1955     IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 04/09/2008 to 10/06/2018 9 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 115 inmate(s) 0,7 m² inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, lack of toiletries, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,500     64134/17 21/08/2017 Daniil [1] Aleksandrovich Zorin 21/01/1979 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-2 Kostroma Region 22/07/2012 to 11/08/2017 5 year(s) and 21 day(s) 1 m² mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, overcrowding Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     67924/17 01/09/2017 Petr Vasilyevich Buyerakov 12/10/1982     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 28/11/2016 to 21/08/2017 8 month(s) and 25   day(s) 1.6 m² no ventilation, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding   3,900     68854/17 01/09/2017 Vladimir Valeryevich Lebedev 24/08/1979     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 11/12/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22   day(s) 1.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of clothing, lack of privacy for showers, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,800     69411/17 23/08/2017 Sergey Nikolayevich Radeyko 30/06/1982     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 16/03/2017 to 29/11/2017 8 month(s) and 14   day(s)         IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 20/12/2017 pending More than 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 105 inmate(s) 3 m² 4 toilet(s)               3 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food   see above Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,800     71196/17 18/09/2017 Mikhail Anatolyevich Uvarov 18/05/1988     IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 29/10/2016 to 22/03/2017 4 month(s) and 23   day(s)   IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 18/04/2017 to 28/04/2017 11 day(s)   IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 04/06/2017 pending More than 1 year(s) and 29 day(s) 6 inmate(s) 2.5 m²         lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding         Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 6,800     73176/17 29/09/2017 Ali Umarovich Salekhov [2] 12/08/1968 Born Aleksandr Viktorovich Kineshma IK-6 OIK-11 Ivanovo Region 02/10/2013 to 05/05/2017 3 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 4   day(s) 120 inmate(s) 2 m² 4 toilet(s) overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     74197/17 09/10/2017 Sergey Sergeyevich Bozhko 04/10/1982     IK-27 Kirov Region 16/06/2010 to 23/06/2017 7 year(s) and 8 day(s) 2 m² inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of privacy for toilet Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     81596/17 08/11/2017 Sergey Ivanovich Pogulyayev 13/02/1965     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 01/01/2013 pending More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2   day(s) 135 inmate(s) 1.2 m² 46 toilet(s) poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, overcrowding   7,000   [1] .     Rectified on 11 October 2008: the text was “Danil”. [2] Rectified on 5 February 2019: the text was “Selekhov”. [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.