THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SOLONENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 50407/10 and 4 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 February 2018

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

In the case of Solonenko 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 1 February 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 . The 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. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. In certain cases the Government submitted unilateral declarations which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7. 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.”

8. 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, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see MurÅ¡ić , cited above, §§ 122 ‑ 141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 159, 10 January 2012 ).

9. In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government ’ s objections related to the ap plication of the six-month time ‑ limit and the loss of the victim stat us by the applicant in case no. 50407/10 (see, for similar considerations, Firstov v. Russia , no. 42119/04 , §§ 26-39, 20 February 2014, and Shilbergs v. Russia , no. 20075/03 , §§ 66-79, 17 December 2009), 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 rejects the Government ’ s admissibility objections and considers that in the instant case the applicants ’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

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

12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founde d 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-119, pertaining to the lack of domestic remedies to complain about the conditions of detention; and Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10 , 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of the applicants ’ detention on remand.

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. In application no. 50407/10 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

14. The Court has examined the complaints 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 application no. 50407/10 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. 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.”

16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 172, 10 January 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17. 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;

3. 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 application no. 50407/10 inadmissible;

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

5. 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);

6. 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 22 February 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

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]

50407/10

26/07/2010

Sergey Viktorovich Solonenko

06/10/1972

Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich

Moscow

IZ-1 Barnaul

05/08/2009 to

19/05/2011

1 year(s) and

9 month(s)

a nd 15 day(s)

4 m²

1 toilet(s)

L ack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell .

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

6,800

52703/14

21/07/2014

Mikhail Mikhaylovich Kokorev

09/02/1985

Yeremin Vitaliy Viktorovich

Moscow

IZ-2 Moscow

11/12/2013 to

22/10/2014

10 month(s)

a nd 12 day(s)

2 inmate(s)

4 m²

1 toilet(s)

L ack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, overcrowding .

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 09/12/2013 to 22/10/2014;

F ragility of the reasons employed by the courts; U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; F ailure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; F ailure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint .

6,000

62071/15

03/12/2015

Mark Aleksandrovich Bronovskiy

10/05/1979

Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich

St Petersburg

IZ-47/1 St Petersburg

14/02/2014

P ending .

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s)

and 29 day(s)

1.5 m²

1 toilet(s)

O vercrowding, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of food .

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention since 14/02/2014;

S till pending; F ailure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding after such a lengthy period of detention; F ailure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

17,900

749/16

11/02/2016

Igor Aleksandrovich Fateyev

12/02/1989

Sotskov Fedor Nikolayevich

Moscow

IZ-77/1 Moscow

30/06/2015 to

15/03/2017

1 year(s)

a nd 8 month(s)

a nd 16 day(s)

2.18 m²

O vercrowding, insufficient number of beds in the cell .

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention from 30/06/2015 till conviction on 06/07/2016; F ragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

U se of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; F ailure to assess the applicant ’ s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; F ailure to examine the possibility of apply ing other measures of restraint.

9,400

52081/16

10/08/2016

Sergey Aleksandrovich Vardugin

09/04/1980

IK-2 Ekaterinburg

(cell-type facility)

09/12/2015 to

13/02/2016

2 month(s)

a nd 5 day(s)

8 inmate(s)

2.3 m²

O vercrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food .

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

1,700

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