CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 juin 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 76 June 2005 Novoselov v. Russia - 66460/01 Judgment 2.6.2005 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Severe overcrowding in a detention facility: violation   Facts : The applicant was taken into custody after quarrelling with his neighbour and assaulting him. He was convicted for disorderly behaviour and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The applicant served the sentence in a detention facility which he alleged was overcrowded, lacked proper ventilation or basic sanitary and hygienic conditions. During the detention he maintained that he had contracted scabies and that his health had been damaged. When released, a clinic examined him and certified that the applicant suffered from emaciation. The Government disputed most of the applicant’s allegations, but conceded that he had been detained “during a period when the detention facilities were overcrowded”. However, they submitted that “overcrowding of the detention facilities was caused by objective reasons (high delinquency rate and lack of State funding to maintain the standard of floor space for all detainees)”. The applicant’s actions claiming compensation for the “inhuman and degrading” conditions of detention were rejected by the domestic courts. The Government maintained that the courts had rightly refused to award compensation, as no fault on the part of the facility personnel could have been established. Law : Article 3 – The Court did not consider it necessary to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation of the parties, as it found there had been a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts presented by the applicant which the Government had not disputed, namely that the cells were overpopulated at the detention facility in question. It appeared that the applicant was afforded less than 1   m² of personal space and shared a sleeping place with other inmates. Save for one hour of daily outside exercise, the applicant was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day. This aspect weighed heavily in considering whether there had been a breach of this provision. In other comparable cases of prison overcrowding, the Court had not found a breach of Article 3 when the restricted space had been compensated by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day-time. Hence, in line with the Courts judgments in Peers v. Greece and Kalashnikov v. Russia, the Court found that the effects on the applicant of the extreme lack of space in the present case, was sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The Government’s admissions that the cell windows were covered with metal shutters blocking access of fresh air and natural light, and that the applicant had twice fallen ill with fever and contracted dermatitis while in detention were also relevant factors, notwithstanding that they had not been established “beyond reasonable doubt”. As regards the Government’s submissions that the overcrowding was due to objective reasons and that the facility officials could not be held liable for it, the Court reiterated that the absence of the purpose to humiliate or debase a victim cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article   3. Even if there had been no fault on the part of the facility officials, the Court emphasised that the Governments were answerable under the Convention for the acts of any State agency since what was in issue in all cases before the Court was the international responsibility of the State. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes