CASE OF LOGINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 14925/16;21849/16;33535/16;52089/16;53618/16;1335/17;1869/17 • ECHR ID: 001-181079
Document date: February 22, 2018
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LOGINOV AND OTHERS v . RUSSIA
( Application no. 14925/16 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 Loginov 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.
Loading citations...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 mainly complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .
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, 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 33535/16 and 53618/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the application s and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is 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 the application s must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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 complaints about the conditions of the applicants ’ detention admissible and the remainder of applications nos. 33535/16 and 53618/16 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention ;
4. 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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
14925/16
29/02/2016
Ilya Alekseyevich Loginov
19/03/1981
IK-11 Bor Nizhny Novgorod Region
18/07/2011
01/06/2017
5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 15 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
1.4 m²
1 toilet(s)
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no hot water, inadequate and insufficient provision of clothing, lack of flush toilets, lack of hand basins, insufficient time allotted for eating meals
9,000
21849/16
04/04/2016
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Novozhilov
20/09/1989
IK-15 Norilsk
09/09/2013 to
16/11/2015
2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)
160 inmate(s)
1 m²
6 toilet(s)
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
5,000
33535/16
22/05/2016
Maksim Vladimirovich Savchenko
29/04/1984
IK-11 Bor Nizhny Novgorod region
04/04/2016
pending
More than 1 year(s) and
8 month(s) and
16 day(s)
1.5 m²
overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food
7,300
52089/16
18/08/2016
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Yaroshok
08/07/1989
IK-29 Primorye Region
16/05/2011 to
16/08/2016
5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.88 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food
5,000
53618/16
30/08/2016
Aleksandr Vitalyevich Selyakov
10/12/1987
LIU-10 Novosibirsk Region
13/01/2016 to
05/03/2016
1 month(s) and 22 day(s)
IK-14 Novosibirsk Region
05/03/2016 to
15/04/2016
1 month(s) and 11 day(s)
32 inmate(s)
1.4 m²
sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease
overcrowding
2,100
1335/17
12/12/2016
Vladimir Gennadyevich Krasnov
17/12/1987
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region Unit 7
27/07/2015
01/04/2017
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)
1.6 m²
bunk beds, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or insufficient quantity of food
6,000
1869/17
20/12/2016
Aleksey Gennadyevich Surkov
08/04/1962
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
25/01/2013
19/12/2016
3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 25 day(s)
64 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.