THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 37673/16 and 6 others – see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 0 September 2018

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2018 ,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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

I. 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.

II. 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 Å‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90 ‑ 94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139 ‑ 165, 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, 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.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. Some applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (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 Sergey Babushkin , cited above, §§ 38-45 .

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 33881/17 and 65679/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 .

V . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. The Court 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 33881/17 and 65679/17 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention ;

4. 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);

5. 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 2 0 September 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting D eputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention ( inadequate conditions of detention )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

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]

37673/16

04/07/2016

Aleksey Vladimirovich Ivanov

24/05/1973

IK-2 Perm Region

06/03/2004 to

17/05/2016

12 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 12 day(s)

1.5-3.2 m²

1 toilet(s)

lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

5,000

33881/17

21/06/2017

Aleksandr Vasilyevich Tingayev

14/06/1969

IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

29/03/2017 to

09/08/2017

4 month(s) and 12 day(s)

20 inmate(s)

3.2 m²

lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or insufficient quantity of food, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

2,500

57095/17

14/08/2017

Pavel Aleksandrovich Gonchar

27/07/1984

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

04/11/2016

pending

More than 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)

126 inmate(s)

2.05-2.5 m²

lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

7,000

62400/17

07/08/2017

Sergey Nikolayevich Yurin

26/06/1972

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

13/02/2012 to

24/10/2017

5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 12 day(s)

45 inmate(s)

2 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell

5,800

64477/17

07/08/2017

Aleksey Anatolyevich Patrushev

18/07/1992

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

18/05/2015 to

11/05/2017

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)

132 inmate(s)

2.1 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

5,000

65679/17

22/03/2017

Oleg Yuryevich Karimov

18/10/1972

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

11/10/2012 to

27/10/2016

4 year(s) and 17 day(s)

6 inmate(s)

2.5 m²

lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

5,000

66771/17

22/08/2017

Oleg Yuryevich Karimov

18/10/1972

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

12/02/2017 to

15/08/2017

6 month(s) and 4 day(s)

2.2 m²

1 toilet(s)

overcrowding

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

1,500

[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.