THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PUZRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 5855/09 and 9 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 February 2018

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

In the case of Puzrina 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 18 January 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 detention during their transport . 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. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 46330/10

6. The applicant, Mr Suzdalev , (application no. 46330/10) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant ’ s sister, Ms E. Suzdaleva , expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request.

7. The Court considers that the applicant ’ s sister has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of her brother ’ s right related to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, §§ 36-42, 29 July 2010; Sobelin and Others v. Russia , nos. 30672/03 and 11 others, §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; Ressegatti v. Switzerland , no. 17671/02 , §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; and Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France , no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005).

8. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Suzdaleva has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 46330/10 on behalf of her late brother.

III. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

9. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in some applications 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 case (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 cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI).

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. 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.”

11. The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants ’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118 ‑ 120, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53 ‑ 60, 31 July 2008). 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 MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122 ‑ 141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 159, 10 January 2012).

12. In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC] , no. 5826/03, §§ 103 ‑ 108, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

13. 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 during their transport were inadequate.

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

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

15. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § § 142-149 and §§ 152 ‑ 158, 22 May 2012 , regarding the reasons for the lengthy detention on remand and lack of speedy review of detention; and M.S. v. Russia , no. 8589/08 , §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014, pertaining to absence of domestic remedies for a complaint about the poor conditions of transport.

VI . REMAINING COMPLAINTS

16. In applications nos. 46330/10 and 42878/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

17. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18. 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.”

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia , nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16 , 7 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

20. 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. Decides that Ms Suzdaleva , the sister of the applicant in application no. 46330/10, has locus standi in the proceedings;

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

4. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport 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. 46330/10 and 42878/16 inadmissible;

5. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport ;

6. 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);

7. 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 8 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 during transport )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Means of transport

Start and end date

Sq. m per inmate

Specific grievances

Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law

Amoun t awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

5855/09

18/11/2008

Svetlana Aleksandrovna Puzrina

06/08/1961

transit cell

23/10/2009 to

02/07/2010

van

23/10/2009 to

02/07/2010

0.5 m²

0.2 m²

damp underground cell, no natural light or fresh air, dim electric light, no ventilation, walls covered with cement coat

dirty van, lack of fresh air, no ventilation

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - the period of pre-trial detention from 22/05/2008 till conviction on 15/11/2010; fragile reasoning for non-violent crime; lack of diligence on the part of authorities

3,400

46330/10

23/07/2010

Aleksey Yuryevich Suzdalev

14/05/1978

transit cell, van

11/07/2010 to

19/05/2011

0.2 m²

overcrowding, lack of sitting places, no ventilation and fresh air, dirty and hot in summer and cold in winter, due to the medical condition the applicant needed to use toilet often, but was not given this possibility by the guards, inmates infected with tuberculosis, no hot meals

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention on remand from 11/07/2010 to 01/03/2011,

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 30/12/2010, the appeal examined only on 10/02/2011

1,300

70881/13

25/09/2013

Sergey Vladimirovich Kramarenko

29/10/1977

T rain

07/04/2013 to

11/04/2013

transit cell

11/04/2013 to

11/04/2013

train

14/04/2013 to

16/04/2013

train

18/04/2013 to

20/04/2013

transit cell

23/04/2013 to

24/04/2013

0.3 m²

1.5 m²

1 m²

0.3 m²

0.4 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, passive smoking

overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food

overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, passive smoking

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, passive smoking

overcrowding, no sleeping places, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities

1,000

6216/14

03/01/2014

Andrey Alekseyevich Zaytsev

24/08/1964

train

28/11/2013 to

28/11/2013

0.3 m²

no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -

1,000

53395/15

03/11/2015

Sergey Yevgenyevich Mokhnatkin

06/03/1954

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

van, train

23/04/2015 to

04/05/2015

0.3 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, impossibility to stand up, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law

1,000

33531/16

26/05/2016

Mikhail Nikolayevich Baurov

15/06/1978

train, van, transit cell

15/11/2015 to

10/12/2015

0.3-0.6 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, insufficient number of sleeping places

1,000

34065/16

25/05/2016

Gennadiy Sergeyevich Afanasyev

08/11/1990

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

van, train

01/12/2015 to

02/12/2015

train, van

05/12/2015 to

05/12/2015

0.4 m²

0.3 m²

o vercrowding

overcrowding

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -

1,000

42878/16

08/07/2016

Andrey Aleksandrovich Aksenov

11/07/1990

van

11/01/2016 to

15/01/2016

0.3 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law

1,000

50716/16

12/10/2016

Sergey Viktorovich Matskevich

09/06/1986

train

07/06/2016 to

09/06/2016

train

15/06/2016 to

17/06/2016

train

23/06/2016 to

24/06/2016

0.5 m²

0.5 m²

0.5 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -

1,000

64175/16

24/10/2016

Gennadiy Olegovich Zayev

15/03/1990

Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich

Pechora

van

25/07/2016 to

25/07/2016

van

04/09/2016 to

04/09/2016

train

04/09/2016 to

04/09/2016

0.3 m²

0.4 m²

0.3 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air

overcrowding

overcrowding

1,000

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