CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 mars 2025

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 82352/17 and 3 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 March 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Korostelev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,   Mateja Đurović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025, 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 particular in view of their placement in solitary confinement. 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. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and, in particular, about their solitary confinement. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in solitary confinement, including in poor material 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 material conditions of detention and solitary confinement (see, for instance, Kud ła   v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §§   90 ‑ 94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI; Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and   60800/08, §§   139 ‑ 65, 10   January 2012 ; and Razvyazkin v.   Russia , no. 13579/09, §§ 90-112, 3 July 2012). It reiterates in particular that solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation is likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities, substantive reasons must be given when a protracted period of solitary confinement is extended (see Razvyazkin , cited above, §§ 101 and 104, and A.B. v. Russia , no. 1439/06, §§ 104 and 108, 14 October 2010). 9.     In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28   November 2013, and Razvyazkin , cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     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. In the present case, the applicants were held in uninterrupted solitary confinement for extended periods, some of them even for months in isolation. The Court takes note that in addition to social isolation the applicants’ placement in solitary confinement was associated with a number of further restrictions involving, in particular, limited access to outdoor exercise and limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside (see   Razvyazkin , cited above, §   102), as well as was accompanied by poor material conditions of detention (see Sergey Babushkin , cited above). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their detention. 11.     To sum up, these complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicants in application no. 82352/17 further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about solitary confinement. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to examine these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.   47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 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, nos.   16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction, and in particular detention of the applicants in solitary confinement, admissible   and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remainder of application no.   82352/17; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention; 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 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   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 Specific grievances Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     82352/17 09/12/2013 Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV 1987           Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN 1986   Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow IZ-11/1 of the Komi Republic (Mr   Korostelev) 21/12/2011 to 10/12/2013 1 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 20   day(s)     IZ-11/1 of the Komi Republic (Mr   Pulyalin) 21/12/2011 to 18/12/2013 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28   day(s) solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 26/09/2013         solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 26/09/2013 5,300, to each of the applicants     4629/21 17/12/2020 Aslan Magomedovich CHERKESOV 1984   Brester Viktoriya Yevgenyevna Krasnoyarsk FKU T-2 punishment cell 15/02/2019 to 15/10/2020 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s) inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 26/06/2020     5,000     19513/21 18/03/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich CHIZHEVSKIY 1989       IK-31, punishment cell 29/03/2019 to 21/05/2019 1 month(s) and 23 day(s) solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 11/11/2020, no parcels, visits or telephone conversations, short daily walks of 1 hour (see Gorodnichev v. Russia , no. 52058/99, §   95, 24/05/2007)   2,000     31876/21 27/05/2021 Ruslan Shamsudinovich KORIGOV 1959   Valiyeva Fatima Abdula-Sadulovna Zhavoronki LIU-1 Altay Region, punishment cell 25/04/2018 to 05/05/2018 11 day(s)   LIU-1 Altay Region, punishment cell 09/06/2018 to 19/06/2018 11 day(s)   LIU-1, IK-3 Altay Region, single-space facility (ЕПКТ) 19/06/2018 to 19/03/2019 9 month(s) and 1 day(s) solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/10/2020, received on 27/11/2020   solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/10/2020, received on 27/11/2020     solitary confinement, final decision: Supreme Court of Russia, 30/10/2020, received on 27/11/2020 4,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.