LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 63337/16;64653/16;67251/16;77738/16;1106/17;1862/17;2745/17 • ECHR ID: 001-180668
Document date: February 8, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 5
CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 63337/16;64653/16;67251/16;77738/16;1106/17;1862/17;2745/17 • ECHR ID: 001-180668
Document date: February 8, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
( Application no. 63337/16 and 6 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 Kovalenko 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 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
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‚ 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, 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. 64653/16 and 67251/16, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded w ithin 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, regarding the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the poor conditions of detention .
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 applications 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 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 )
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Inmates per brigade
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]
63337/16
12/12/2016
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kovalenko
11/07/1969
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region Unit 10
20/02/2012
P ending .
More than 5 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 29 day(s) .
1.5 m²
P assive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient electric light .
8,300
64653/16
07/12/2016
Nikolay Vladimirovich Sychev
06/02/1983
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region Units 1, 2
11/09/2010
P ending .
More than 7 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 8 day(s) .
1.5 m²
L ack of or insufficient electric light, no ventilation, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities .
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inad equate conditions of detention.
8,300
67251/16
21/12/2016
Viktor Yuryevich Semykin
20/09/1979
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region
19/11/2010
P ending .
More than 7 year(s)
a nd 1 month(s) .
2 m²
L ack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no ventilation, high humidity, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water .
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inade quate conditions of detention.
8,000
77738/16
30/11/2016
Vadim Ivanovich Khorshev
24/06/1969
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod region Unit 7
14/11/2011 to
29/11/2016
5 year(s) and 16 day(s) .
1.2 m²
P oor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no warm clothing .
5,000
1106/17
15/12/2016
Anatoliy Andreyevich Potapov
29/01/1985
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod region Unit 5
02/03/2015 to
30/08/2016
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 29 day(s) .
1.2 m²
N o or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of adequate clothing.
5,000
1862/17
20/12/2016
Viktor Nikolayevich Krysov
07/10/1958
IK-11 the Nizhniy Novgorod Region
(УЗ-62/11)
23/12/2013 to
03/02/2017
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) .
113 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
O vercrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents .
5,500
2745/17
19/12/2016
Vladimir Anatolyevich Volkov
02/01/1970
IK-16 Arkhangelsk Region
26/05/2016 to
25/10/2016
5 month(s) .
IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region
25/10/2016 to
31/12/2016
2 month(s) and 7 day(s) .
65 inmate(s)
1.1 m²
180 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
O vercrowding .
O vercrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell .
3,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
