THIRD SECTION

CASE OF YAKOVLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 64119/13 and 6 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 Yakovlev 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 . 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 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN POST-CONVICTOIN FACILITIES

6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention in post-conviction facilities. 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 and the Government ’ s argument about the application of the six-month time-limit to cases of continuous situation of a violation of the Convention rights and about the introduction date of certain applications, 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.

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

III. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 64119/13 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

11. The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised in application no. 64119/13. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention during the applicant ’ s transit to the correctional colony from 10 December 2012 to 24 April 2013 and offered to pay him 3,960 euros ( EUR). They further invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

12. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from him accepting the terms of the declaration.

13. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

14. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI)).

15. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012).

16. Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part pertaining to the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention from 10 December 2012 to 24 April 2013 (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

17. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

18. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration , the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of application no. 64119/13 out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the period indicated above.

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

20. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised an issue 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 .

V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21. In applications nos. 64119/13 and 18877/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

22. The Court has examined the applications 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 applications nos. 64119/13 and 18877/17 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

VI . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

23. 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.”

24. 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.

25. 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. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration submitted in application no. 64119/13 concerning the applicant ’ s detention from 10 December 2012 to 24 April 2013, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, and decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in post-conviction facilities and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 64119/13 and 18877/17 inadmissible;

4. Holds that these complaints 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

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]

64119/13

17/06/2013

Denis Vasilyevich Yakovlev

13/05/1981

IK-13 Sverdlovsk Region

24/04/2013 to

23/01/2014

9 month(s)

150 inmate(s)

1 m²

5 toilet(s)

Poor quality of food, no ventilation, 2 sinks, cats, insects and rats, poor lighting, low temperature in the dormitory.

1,900

53696/16

10/01/2017

Anton Vitalyevich Maslov

19/11/1976

IK-46 Sverdlovsk Region

18/03/2012 to

18/11/2016

4 year(s) and 8 month(s)

and 1 day(s)

148 inmate(s)

1.4 m²

5 toilet(s)

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.

5,000

79163/16

30/01/2017

Sergey Nikolayevich Zagagurin

06/10/1990

IK-2 Zabaykalsk Region

22/02/2014

pending

More than 3 year(s)

and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)

130 inmate(s)

1.8 m²

No or restricted access to warm water, no or insufficient disinfection of barbering and haircutting tools, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance.

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

8,000

13362/17

03/02/2017

Sergey Leonidovich Malyutin

20/11/1968

IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region

06/09/2010

Pending.

More than 7 year(s) and

4 month(s) and 8 day(s)

90 inmate(s)

1.6 m²

No or restricted access to warm water.

8,000

16305/17

13/02/2017

Igor Aleksandrivich Konyayev

07/11/1974

IK-2 Zabaykalsk Region

04/05/2015 to

30/10/2017

2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)

122 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.

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

7,300

18289/17

21/02/2017

Viktor Ivanovich Nefedov

29/10/1956

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

06/10/2014

P ending .

More than 3 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 5 day(s)

110 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

8 toilet(s)

Lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.

7,800

18877/17

21/02/2017

Ivan Valeryevich Malyshev

23/02/1983

IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region

18/01/2016

Pending.

More than 1 year(s)

and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)

140 inmate(s)

2.2 m²

6 toilet(s)

Overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet.

7,800

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