Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KLEMENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 56110/09 and 8 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 Klemenkov 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6. 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.”

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government ’ s objections, including that concerning the failure by the applicants in applications nos. 56110/09 and 5269/17 to comply with the six-month time-limit to raise their complaints with the Court, 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.

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. 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 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 .

IV . REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In applications nos. 58029/16 and 79681/16 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

13. 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.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. 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 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. 58029/16 and 79681/16 inadmissible;

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

4. 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);

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 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

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

56110/09

20/05/2009

Aleksandr Alekseyevich Klemenkov

15/01/1976

Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna

Krsanoyarsk

van

21/05/2012 to

26/06/2012

0.5 m²

overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light

1,000

20715/16

05/04/2016

Gennadiy Sergeyevich Afanasyev

08/11/1990

Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

train

17/09/2015 to

18/09/2015

train

22/09/2015 to

23/09/2015

train

04/10/2015 to

05/10/2015

0.5 m²

0.4 m²

0.6 m²

overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of drinking water

overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of drinking water

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

1,000

58029/16

19/09/2016

Yuriy Valeryevich Mamontov

29/03/1968

train, van

12/06/2016 to

12/06/2016

0.5 m²

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

1,000

63593/16

13/10/2016

Gennadiy Aleksandrovich Guziyev

15/08/1984

Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich

Pechora

van, train

01/02/2016 to

01/08/2016

0.3 m²

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

1,000

73369/16

22/11/2016

Anton Yuryevich Dyatkinskiy

28/06/1984

Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich

Pechora

van, train

23/08/2016 to

24/08/2016

van, train

07/09/2016 to

08/09/2016

0.29 m²

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

1,000

79613/16

06/12/2016

Yuriy Vladimirovich Sobolev

22/11/1985

Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich

Pechora

train, van

07/11/2016 to

08/11/2016

train, van

27/11/2016 to

28/11/2016

0.29 m²

lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light

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

1,000

79681/16

14/12/2016

Aleksey Viktorovich Abramov

12/01/1978

van

31/05/2016

to 04/04/2017

0.3 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature

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

1,000

3765/17

29/12/2016

Vadim Yegorovich Anufriyev

05/06/1989

Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich

Pechora

van, train

14/10/2016 to

19/12/2016

0.29 m²

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

1,000

5269/17

12/12/2016

Mark Aleksandrovich Bronovskiy

10/05/1979

Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich

St Petersburg

van

01/07/2016 and

21/07/2016

0.2 m²

overcrowding

1,000

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