CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 juin 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   334 16.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LABZOV v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Labzov v. Russia (application no. 62208/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention; and no violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Labzov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Cheboksary (Russia). He is the manager of a private building partnership.   Having been suspected of fraudulently appropriating a tractor and a tank truck belonging to the partnership, the applicant was charged with embezzlement and placed in a remand prison on 10 April 2000. He was transferred to the prison hospital after suffering heart trouble during questioning. Once his condition had stabilised, he was moved to remand prison IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk on 16 May 2000. During the course of his detention he was held in three different cells. He subsequently spent a further period of just over one month in hospital on account of his worsening health.   On 1 August 2000 the applicant was released as the charges against him had been dropped under an amnesty law.   The conditions in which the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk were disputed among the parties.   The applicant submitted, among other things, that for most of the time he had been kept in a cell measuring 15 sq.   m which housed between 35 and 40 prisoners but had only 20 beds. The prisoners had to take turns to try to sleep despite the constant noise and the artificial light. The toilet, which was inside the cell, was always occupied because some of the prisoners were suffering from dysentery, and was in front of the peephole for the guards, who were mostly women.   He further maintained that the cell had not been equipped with bedding, crockery or cutlery, that the windows were covered with metal blinds which did not let the daylight in and that the cell was infested with cockroaches, lice and rats in particular. Once a fortnight the prisoners were allowed to have a quick shower, and they could take an hour-long walk every day on the roof of the building.   The Russian Government stated that the cell, although designed for 10 detainees, on average housed 22. It was ventilated and the toilet was separated from the rest of the room. They asserted, among other things, that prisoners suffering from diseases were kept in isolation away from the cell.   The applicant also stated that in December 2002 he had been subjected to pressure and threats from a number of officials seeking to make him withdraw his application to the European Court of Human Rights.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the Court on 8 June 2000 and declared partly admissible on 8 January 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 3 of the conditions in which he had been detained. He further submitted that the police had attempted to make him withdraw his application to the Court.       Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that the parties differed as to the actual conditions in which the applicant had been detained. However, they agreed in principle about the number of prisoners in the cell at the same time as the applicant. It appeared that during his 35 days of detention, the applicant had been afforded less than 1 sq. m of personal space and had shared a bed with other prisoners, where they had had to take turns to sleep. He had had one hour of daily outdoor exercise and had thus been confined to his cell for 23 hours a day.   The fact that the applicant had been compelled to live, sleep and use the toilet in a cell occupied by so many other inmates was in itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.   Although it had not been possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the ventilation, heating, lighting or sanitary conditions in the prison had been unacceptable for the purposes of Article 3, the Court pointed out that the applicant’s state of health had necessitated medical treatment. Those factors, together with the severe overcrowding, meant that the conditions of his detention had gone beyond the threshold tolerated under Article 3.   Lastly, as to the Government’s submission that the authorities had not intended to make the applicant suffer, the Court reiterated that, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim was a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose could not rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 34   Although the parties agreed that the applicant had indeed been interviewed by the officials in question, there was no evidence that the purpose of the interviews had been to compel him to withdraw his application to the Court. That being so, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 34.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.