THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KLIMNENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 1532/13 and 6 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 Klimnenko 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 other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (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 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

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]

1532/13

12/11/2012

Dmitriy Vladimirovich Klimnenko

13/01/1975

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

28/01/2011 to

10/08/2016

5 years and 6 months and 14 days

1.7 m²

overcrowding, inadequate temperature

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

16,300

2808/17

19/12/2016

Denis Aleksandrovich Karakov

27/01/1982

Yesina Tatyana Robertovna

Sevastopol

IK 56 Ivdel , Sverdlovsk Region

14/05/2010

pending

More than 7 years and 10 months and 7 days

lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, use of pots instead of lavatory and the need to empty those pots once a day

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

9,000

3645/17

19/12/2016

Igor Vladimirovich Vakolyuk

12/05/1971

IK-1 Arkhangelsk

20/06/2013

pending

More than 4 years and 9 months and 1 day

180 inmates

1.7 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water

9,000

5619/17

27/12/2016

Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Samotkanov

07/09/1962

IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region

05/09/2011 to

12/12/2016

5 years and 3 months and 8 days

135 inmates

2.3 m²

overcrowding, bunk beds, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food

5,000

17313/17

15/02/2017

Andrey Vladimirovich Grekov

16/11/1977

IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

01/03/2007 to

30/04/2017

10 years and 2 months

1 m²

bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

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

5,800

17586/17

17/02/2017

Pavel Valeryevich Skokan

21/02/1980

IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region

18/12/2009 to

27/11/2017

7 years and 11 months and 10 days

1 m²

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower

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

7,500

18305/17

22/02/2017

Andrey Nikolayevich Karpov

31/01/1970

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

22/12/2014

pending

More than 3 years and

2 months and 27 days

1.5 m²

lack of fresh air, passive smoking, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

8,300

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