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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 BAKANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 61929/17 and 7 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 Bakanov 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 their detention. In application no.   23384/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 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 their on-going post-conviction 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 have been 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 ‑ 65, 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 conditions of the applicants’ on-going detention in post-conviction facilities 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.     In application no.   23384/18 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues 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. 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 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 applications admissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction; 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 after conviction) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth 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]     61929/17 06/02/2018 Aleksandr Alekseyevich BAKANOV 1977 IK-5 Mordovia Republic 26/09/2016 – pending More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 17 day(s) 45 inmate(s) 1 m²   lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food   12,500     5532/18 25/12/2017 Aleksey Anatolyevich KULESHOV 1977 IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 04/12/2017 – pending More than 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s) 135 inmate(s) 1.2 m² 6 toilet(s) lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water   12,500     7445/18 22/01/2018 Kazbek Taymurazovich DZEBISOV 1975 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 17/08/2015 – pending More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 day(s) 1.2 m² lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   12,500     9418/18 29/01/2018 Sergey Sergeyevich PARFENOV 1980 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 02/04/2012 – pending More than 10 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s) 130 inmate(s) 1.2 m² no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   12,500     12316/18 17/04/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich SALOMATOV 1961 IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 18/12/2011 – pending More than 10 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s) 1.5 m² overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet   12,500     13735/18 27/04/2018 Vasiliy Valentinovich NIKULIN 1986 IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 20/05/2011– pending More than 8 year(s) and 9   month(s) and 21 day(s) 80 inmate(s) 1 m² lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food   12,500     23384/18 27/04/2018 Aslan Makharbekovich BOLOTAYEV 1987 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 06/04/2017 – pending More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 6 day(s) 45 inmate(s) 1.6 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 12,500     31750/18 17/06/2018 Vladimir Alekseyevich STEPANOV 1971 IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 04/05/2010 – pending More than 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s) 169 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 7 toilet(s) overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water   12,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.