CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 décembre 2007

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   883 6.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT LIND v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Lind v. Russia (application no. 25664/05).   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 concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention; a violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention concerning the length of his pre-trial detention; a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 15,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Yaapovich Lind, is a Russian and Dutch national who was born in 1981 and lives in St Petersburg. He is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.   On 14 December 2004 a group of about 40 members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President’s administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor. They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s administration, Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor, Mr Illarionov. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation. The intruders stayed in the office for one hour and a half until the police broke down the blocked door. They did not offer any other resistance to the authorities.   As a result of those incidents, on 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of State power and intentional destruction and degradation of property in public places.   On 16 December 2004 Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow had ordered the applicant’s detention on the ground that he was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence, had no permanent residence in Moscow and was a Dutch national. It considered that there was a risk of his re-offending, absconding, interfering with the investigation or intimidating witnesses. Mr Lind appealed, complaining that the district court had not cited any facts to justify the necessity of ordering his detention. On 3 February 2005 Moscow City Court upheld the detention order.   The applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. In two cells where the applicant was held until the end of April 2005, inmates had less than 3m² of personal space. In a third cell, where the applicant stayed until his release in December 2005, he had 2.1 m² of personal space. The applicant was confined to his cell day and night, except for one hour of daily outdoor exercise.   The applicant maintained that the cells swarmed with cockroaches, crickets and lice, that there was no ventilation and the cells were stifling and smoky inside. The partition separating the toilet facilities from the living area did not offer sufficient privacy and the person using the toilet was in view of the other inmates. The artificial light was never switched off. The exercise yard was only 15   m². Food was scarce and inmates were only allowed to take a shower for ten minutes once a week.   Although the applicant suffered from chronic glomerulonephritis (a kidney disease) and required constant medical supervision, he received no treatment. On 18 and 25 July 2005 he complained of an aching kidney and asked the facility doctor to examine him and prescribe medication. His request remained unanswered.   In September 2005 the applicant applied to be released for a few days so that he could see his father, Jaap Lind, who was dying of cancer and had asked for euthanasia, which was scheduled for 29   September 2005. The Dutch Ambassador supported the request for release. On 27 September 2005 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow rejected the request on the ground that since the applicant was a Dutch national he might abscond or interfere with the proceedings. On 28 September 2005 the applicant was allowed to talk to his father on the telephone, but only in Russian. The Dutch Embassy paid for the call. The conversation was also interrupted by the facility administration a minute later. On 29 September 2005 Jaap Lind died by euthanasia.   On 8 December 2005 Tverskoy District Court convicted the applicant of participation in mass disorders and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment conditional on two years' probation. The applicant was immediately released.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Lind complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention, the length of his pre-trial detention and the refusal of leave to visit his father on his deathbed or attend a farewell ceremony for him. He relied on Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 8.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him the feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.   The Court further observed that the applicant suffered from a chronic kidney disease. However, no treatment for his disease was provided.   The Court concluded that, by keeping the applicant in overcrowded cells and by refusing him medical assistance appropriate to his chronic kidney condition, the domestic authorities had subjected him to inhuman and degrading treatment. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 concerning his detention conditions.   Article 5 § 3   The Court considered that by failing to address concrete facts or consider alternative “preventive measures” and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities had prolonged the applicant's detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, could not be regarded as “sufficient”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Article 8   The Court noted that respect for the applicant's family life required that, once his application for release had been rejected, the applicant be offered another way of saying goodbye to his dying father. The applicant had in fact been allowed to talk to his father over the phone, in Russian only. The conversation had lasted a minute and had been interrupted by the facility administration. The Government had not provided any explanation for the interruption of the conversation. The Court considered that a one-minute conversation in a language which the applicant's father had difficulty understanding did not allow the applicant to say goodbye to his father in a meaningful way. No other possibility to contact his father had been offered. The Court therefore concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to secure respect for the applicant's family life, in violation of Article 8.     Judge Kovler expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.