Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 74889/16 and 7 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

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

In the case of Smirnov 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 24 May 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 complaints under Article 13 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:

Article 3

“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 . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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.”

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, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14. 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 applications admissible;

3. Holds that these applications 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 14 June 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 name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

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]

74889/16

17/11/2016

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Smirnov

31/08/1979

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

IK-1 Kostroma

16/09/2015 to

15/11/2016

1 year and 2 months

2 m²

overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food

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

5,000

71845/17

18/09/2017

Anton Andreanovich Troitskiy

21/07/1986

Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna

St Petersburg

IK-6 Republic of Chuvashiya

29/04/2015 to

16/08/2017

2 years and 3 months and 19 days

50 inmates

1.5 m²

overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of requisite medical assistance, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease

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

5,000

71866/17

20/09/2017

Mikhail Arkadyevich Klokov

11/06/1973

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

04/06/2012 to

29/08/2017

5 years and 2 months and 26 days

60 inmates

1.6 m²

overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food

5,000

71925/17

21/09/2017

Vladimir Nikolayevich Shiyanov

11/06/1975

IK-8 Bashkortostan Republic

10/11/2015 to

12/07/2017

1 year and 8 months and 3 days

180 inmates

1.4 m²

8 toilets

lack of fresh air, overcrowding, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient electric light

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

5,000

71945/17

07/09/2017

Pavel Borisovich Tolstykh

18/03/1981

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

03/08/2015

pending

More than 2 years and

8 months and 18 days

1.4 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

7,000

71962/17

12/09/2017

Andrey Stanislavovich Poskrebyshev

06/06/1985

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

03/09/2015

pending

More than 2 years and

7 months and 18 days

80 inmates

1.7 m²

overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture

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

7,000

73984/17

06/10/2017

Igor Vladimirovich Shalyakin

03/04/1971

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

01/02/2017

pending

More than 1 year and

2 months and 20 days

1.5 m²

overcrowding

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

5,800

74152/17

04/10/2017

Oleg Leonidovich Artemenkov

15/10/1967

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

21/03/2016

pending

More than 2 years and

1 month

140 inmates

2 m²

poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of toiletries

6,800

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