Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ACHILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 45075/15 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 Achilov 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 . In application no. 4215/17 the applicant also raised a complaint 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 60800/0 8, §§ 139 ‑ 65, 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 objection related to the application of the six-month rule or the incorrect determination of the introductory date for certain cases, 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 dismisses the Government ’ s objections as unfounded 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. In application no. 4215/17 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation 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 complaints 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 complaint 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 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]

45075/15

24/08/2015

Zufar Achilov

29/10/1958

IK-10 Saratov

12/09/2013

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)

80 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

5 toilet(s)

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water

12,300

31553/16

23/05/2016

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Kirichenko

26/08/1977

IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

29/12/2006

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 13 day(s)

130 inmate(s)

3 m²

6 toilet(s)

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

10,000

39854/16

28/06/2016

Dmitriy Sergeyevich Khlebushchev

22/03/1984

IK-29, Sorda , Kirov Region

11/01/2013 to

05/05/2016

3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)

6 inmate(s)

2-2.5 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of time and facilities to teat in the canteen, poor toilet facilities (low temperature, no running water), lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of sport activities

5,000

1931/17

19/12/2016

Roman Aleksandrovich Li

02/01/1966

IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region

18/01/2010

pending

More than 7 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)

90 inmate(s)

1.6 m²

no or restricted access to potable water

8,300

4215/17

21/12/2016

Sergey Sergeyevich Dzhun

27/05/1987

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

18/06/2015 to

09/12/2016

1 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

22 day(s)

6 inmate(s)

2.5 m²

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

5,000

9848/17

17/01/2017

Ivan Nikolayevich Mikin

02/10/1963

IK-29 Kirov Region

01/04/2016

pending

More than 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)

6 inmate(s)

2.5 m²

lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

7,500

11144/17

30/01/2017

Aleksandr Alekseyevich Shatalov

30/12/1987

IK-11, Nizhniy Novgorod Region

28/08/2015

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)

2 m²

overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

8,000

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