Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SHIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 9428/17 and 7 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 March 2018

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

In the case of Shimokhin and Others v. Russia ,

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

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 8 March 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 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. OTHE R 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, concerning lack of an effective domestic venue to complain about the poor conditions of detention .

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 29 March 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Luis López Guerra

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

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]

9428/17

20/03/2017

Sergey Aleksandrovich Shimokhin

05/04/1961

IK-2 Zabaykalsk i y Region

21/11/2002 to

12/08/2017

14 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)

140 inmate(s)

2 m²

overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

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

6,300

12107/17

10/04/2017

Aleksey Mikhaylovich Kazantsev

10/04/1981

IK-2 Zabaykalsk i y Region

23/11/2013 to

10/04/2017

3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)

1.7 m²

overcrowding, inadequate temperature

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

5,000

12152/17

10/04/2017

Nikolay Vasilyevich Kartsev

01/04/1967

IK-2 Zabay kalsk i y Region

22/02/2014

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)

2 m²

lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, high humidity

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

7,800

12470/17

23/01/2017

Grigoriy Mikhaylovich Klokov

11/03/1979

IK-2 Zabay kalsk i y Region

06/12/2013 to

03/02/2017

3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)

160 inmate(s)

1.7 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

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

5,300

14245/17

07/02/2017

Khamid Galimovich Kertbiyev

14/11/1975

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

09/11/2009

pending

More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

140 inmate(s)

2.2 m²

6 toilet(s)

overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of warm clothes and shoes

8,300

28740/17

23/03/2017

Denis Vladimirovich Lavrentyev

13/07/1984

IK-11 Khanty-Mansi Region

03/11/2016 to

18/10/2017

11 month(s) and 16 day(s)

110 inmate(s)

2.2-3 m²

lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell

5,000

28845/17

05/04/2017

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Korobeynikov

10/04/1983

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

04/04/2011 to

10/10/2016

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

2 m²

overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food

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

5,000

31597/17

19/04/2017

Roman Sergeyevich Kharitonov

02/02/1977

IK-27 Kirov Region

25/01/2010 to

20/10/2016

6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s)

2 m²

5 toilet(s)

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food

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

5,000

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