THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DZHANARALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 67947/13 and 2 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 Dzhanaraliyev 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 Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. After having considered the Government ’ s objection, the Court rejects it.

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, which were incompatible with their disabilities, and of the lack of an effective remedy in that regard . 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 S 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6. The applicants complained principally about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

7. The Court notes that the applicants, who suffer from various disabilities, were kept in detention in poor conditions which did not satisfy their special needs. The details of the applicants ’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia , no. 78774/13, §§ 78 ‑ 81, 10 May 2016, and Butrin v. Russia , no. 16179/14, §§ 46 ‑ 51, 22 March 2016). It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin , cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia , no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland , no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004)

8 In the cases of Topekhin , Butrin and Semikhvostov (all cited above), 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 conditions of the applicants ’ detention, exacerbated by their physical impairments, amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment” within the meaning of the Convention.

10. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints (see, among other authorities, Butrin , cited above, §§ 43-45, and Semikhvostov , cited above, §§ 61 ‑ 68).

11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 24632/15 and 53248/15, the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 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.

IV . 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, Butrin , cited above, §§ 72-74, and Semikhvostov , cited above, §§ 88-90), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants ’ claims.

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 conditions of detention of disabled inmates and the lack of any effective remedy in respect of these complaints admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 24632/15 and 53248/15 inadmissible;

3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article s 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ detention in poor conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection ;

4. 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.

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction.

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 and Article 13 of the Convention ( conditions of detention of disabled inmates and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth/Date of registration

Representative name and location

Type of disability

Detention with disability: facility and periods

Specific grievances

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

67947/13

18/10/2013

Lechi Musayevich Dzhanaraliyev

06/11/1980

Vasilyev Illarion Georgiyevich

Moscow

Left sided hemiparesis (wheelchair-bound person)

IK-5, Lepley , Republic of Mordoviya

22/08/2008 to 07/10/2017

9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s) .

9 stays in prison hospital no. 21 (ЛПУ-21), Republic of Mordoviya

27/08/2008 to 04/03/2016

7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s) .

Full dependence on inmates ’ assistance; sanitary facilities are not adapted for the needs of wheelchair users; the detention facility lacked wheelchair ramps.

Full dependence on inmates ’ assistance; sanitary facilities are not adapted for the needs of wheelchair users; the detention facility lacked wheelchair ramps.

15,000

0

24632/15

07/05/2015

Khuseyn Alimpashayevich Salimsultanov

12/12/1981

Mirzakhanov Yakub Umaraskhabovich

Makhachkala

P araparesis of lower limbs and voiding dysfunction (a wheelchair user)

IZ-3 and IZ-1, Dagestan Republic

14/05/2007 to

05/05/2008

11 month(s) and 22 day(s) .

IK-2, Tyumen Region

05/06/2008 to 16/08/2010

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

IK-1, Stavropol Region

16/08/2010 to 13/05/2016

5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 28 day(s) .

Full dependence on inmates ’ assistance; sanitary facilities are not adapted for the needs of inmates with disabilities.

Full dependence on inmates ’ assistance; sanitary facilities, particularly squat toilets, are not adapted for the needs of inmates with disabilities; lack of opportunity to move freely on the territory of the facility.

Full dependence on inmates ’ assistance; belated receipt by the applicant of a wheelchair and other devices prescribed by “the individual rehabilitation program; irregular supply with diapers; sanitary facilities are not adapted for the needs of inmates with disabilities, particularly there are no handrails in the toilet.

15,000

0

53248/15

14/10/2015

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kondrashov

08/04/1986

Pigoleva Darya Sergeyevna

Moscow

Tetraparesis , and voiding dysfunction (the applicant is a walking frame user)

IK-14, Krasnodar

12/02/2013 to 28/04/2016

3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 17 day(s) .

Lack of nursing assistance; lack of handrails in sanitary facilities during the first years of the applicant ’ s detection; the applicant experienced difficulties when accessing remotely located canteen.

15,000

850[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

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