CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s89AAF1A5 { width:169.83pt; display:inline-block } .s73ADF00B { width:77.33pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 IKONNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 36668/17 and 11 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 December 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ikonnikov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina , Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 November 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. 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 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 ‑ 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016, and 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     The applicant in application no. 23972/18 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 findings in Gorlov   and Others v.   Russia (nos.   27057/06   and 2   others, §§   58-100, 2   July 2019), concerning permanent video surveillance in detention facilities. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In applications nos.   39771/17, 78884/17 and 26418/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.     The Court has examined these applications 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. 14.     Finally, some applicants also complained about the lack of effective remedies in respect of poor conditions of detention. In the light of its findings above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine these complaints separately. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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. 17.     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 after conviction and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints about the lack of effective remedies to complain about poor conditions of detention, and finds the remainder of applications nos. 39771/17, 78884/17 and 26418/18 inadmissible; 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 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 15 December 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   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]     36668/17 16/05/2017 Sergey Alekseyevich IKONNIKOV 1987     various correctional facilities, including IK-15 and IK-5, Nizhniy Novgorod Region 20/08/2010 pending More than 12 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s) 7 inmate(s) 2 m² 1 toilet(s) lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance   12,500     39771/17 10/05/2017 Rashid Bekmurzayevich IBRAGIMOV 1986     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 21/10/2016 pending More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2 m² no in-season shoes, no clothes to change, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities   12,500     58719/17 14/07/2017 Igor Anatolyevich PETROV 1963     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 29/11/2010 pending More than 11 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s) 170 inmate(s) 2.6 m² 3 toilet(s) lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease   12,500     61685/17 04/08/2017 Makhsum Kamilyevich BAGAUTDINOV 1992 Madyudin Aleksey Grigoryevich St Petersburg IK-49 Republic of Komi 26/02/2015 pending More than 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 m² 5 toilet(s) inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food   12,500     67964/17 05/09/2017 Vladimir Vladimirovich LENK 1969     IK-8 Khabarovsk Region 25/05/2015 pending More than 7 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s) 2 m² overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food   12,500     77692/17 25/10/2017 Konstantin Vladimirovich MYSLIVCHIK 1980     IK-5 Kirov Region 19/07/2016 to 24/05/2018 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food   6,800     78884/17 22/10/2017 Vadim Vyacheslavovich GLAZKOV 1981 Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich Nizhniy Tagil IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region 03/07/2017 to 10/08/2018 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) 150 inmate(s) 2 m² 4 toilet(s) lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food   5,600     84534/17 22/11/2017 Aleksey Yuryevich LEONOV 1982     OIK-5 IK-29 the Kirov Region 15/09/2016 pending More than 6 year(s) and 4 day(s) 4 inmate(s) 2 m² 1 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food   12,500     21481/18 18/04/2018 Maksim Nikolayevich KOZLOV 1982     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 05/07/2017 pending More than 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s) 31 inmate(s) 2.2 m² poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet   12,500   23972/18 23/10/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich SMOLNIKOV 1981   IK-29 Kirov Region 25/09/2019 pending More than 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) 2,5 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, restricted access to warm water, restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, inadequate hygienic facilities Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - 28/06/2017 - pending IK-29 Kirov Region Opposite-sex operators, Detention in different cells with video surveillance 11,000   26418/18 15/05/2018 Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich ALTYNBAYEV 1981     IK-1 Komi Republic 09/09/2018 pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 m² constant electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food   12,500   34809/18 09/07/2018 Andrey Nikolayevich VORONOV 1986     IK-5 Kirov Region 26/07/2016 pending More than 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 22 day(s) 105 inmate(s) 2.3 m² no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food   12,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.