CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sF34A263B { height:25.8pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s946186CA { height:1.6pt } .s4FB5D7A { height:25.65pt } .s9987F531 { height:146.45pt } .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 BRESHCHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33120/08 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 October 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Breshchanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022, 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 Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 detention during their transport. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. 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 detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ transport are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v.   Russia , no.   6847/02, §§   118 ‑ 20, ECHR   2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v.   Russia , no.   42239/02, §§   53 ‑ 60, 31   July 2008). It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space 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 Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   122 ‑ 41, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 59, 10   January 2012). 8.     In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012 and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9   April 2019, 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 during their transport were inadequate. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under 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 well ‑ established case-law (see Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13, §§   78-88, 10   May 2016, concerning conditions of detention of disabled inmates, Tomov and Others , cited above, §§   92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of detention during transport; and Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2   July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   33120/08, 5217/17, 13433/18, 16943/18, 33223/18, 41960/18, 42438/18, 21798/19 and 64125/19, 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. 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v.   Russia, nos.   17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 16.     The Court further 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport 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.   33120/08, 5217/17, 13433/18, 16943/18, 33223/18, 41960/18, 42438/18, 21798/19 and   64125/19 inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport; 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 the appended table); 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 during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Means of transport Start and end date Sq. m per inmate 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] 1. 33120/08 21/03/2008 Aleksandr Olegovich BRESHCHANOV 1973     train, van 16/11/2007 to 23/11/2007   lack of requisite physical/medical assistance, lack or inadequate furniture   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention of disabled inmates - The applicant while in detention in Lefortovo detention facility in Moscow (IZ 1/1) and in IZ ‑ 62/1 between 24/06/2003 and 23/11/2007 suffered from a spinal cord injury and paraplegia but he was not provided with conditions of detention adapted to his disability, in particular, he was not provided with necessary equipment (crutches), he could not go to the exercise yard and remained inside all the time, he also had difficulties taking shower as washing facilities were not adapted for disabled detainees, he had to rely on other inmates to help him to go to the toilet. 16,000 2. 5217/17 09/11/2016 Oleg Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV 1977 Viktor Viktorovich Fedoseyev Moscow train, van, transit cell 13/03/2015 to 12/04/2018 0.4-0.7 m²     lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000 3. 13433/18 14/02/2018 Mikhail Mikhaylovich CHEMYAKIN 1988     train, transit cell 04/09/2017 to 27/09/2017 0,3 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower   1,000 4. 16943/18 19/09/2018 Omar Gazimagomedovich ISMAILOV 1978     train (Makhachkala - Ukhta) 07/01/2018 to 23/03/2018 0.3 m²     overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport     1,000 5. 33016/18 04/05/2018 Gennadiy Mingishevich KHABBASOV 1973 Tatyana Robertovna Yesina Sevastopol transit cell, train 18/11/2017 to 04/12/2017   passive smoking, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, use of various measures of restraints Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000 6. 33223/18 22/06/2018 Anton Nikolayevich DEMIN 1986 Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev Syktyvkar van, train 27/05/2018 to 28/05/2018                     van, train 05/06/2018 to 05/06/2018 0.5 m²                         0.5 m²     overcrowding, no handrails in the van, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack of requisite medical assistance   overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no handrails in the van, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000 7. 36638/18 24/07/2018 Aleksey Gennadyevich BERDUTO 1966     train, van 03/02/2018 to 01/03/2018   lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding   1,000 8. 41960/18 19/08/2018 Andrey Valeryevich KOLOSKOV 1981     train, van 17/02/2018 to 19/02/2018 0.25 m²     overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, insufficient number of sleeping places Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000 9. 42438/18 06/08/2018 Yulian Yevgenyevich NEMTSEV 1981     van, train 27/07/2018 to 28/07/2018       train, van, transit cell 09/08/2018 to 09/08/2018       train, van 03/04/2019 pending 0.4 m²           0.3 m²     lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, overcrowding   overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light   lack of fresh air, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet           Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport     1,000 10. 21798/19 21/08/2019 Anatoliy Leonidovich POROSHIN 1989 Larisa Viktorovna Zakharova Yekaterinburg train, transit cell, van 27/09/2019 to 05/10/2019       insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, overcrowding Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport   1,000 11. 64125/19 13/01/2020 Stanislav Nikolayevich OVCHINNIKOV 1988 Andrey Yevgenyevich Golubenko Nea Skiony train, transit cell, van 01/11/2019 to 02/11/2019         train, transit cell, van 29/11/2019 to 29/11/2019 0.3-1.2 m²     insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of potable water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light   see above   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - during detention in IK-25 Komi Republic, video surveillance by the opposite sex operators, 03/06/2016 – pending.   1,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.