THIRD SECTION

CASE OF NOVINSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 28262/07 and 7 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2017

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

In the case of Novinskiy and Others 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 23 November 2017 ,

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. THE INTRODUCTION DATE FOR CASE NO. 36825/16

6. The Government submitted that the Court ’ s Registry determined incorrectly the introduction date for application no. 36825/16.

7. The Court reiterates that the date of the introduction of an application is generally considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application (see, for example, Kemevuako v. the Netherlands ( dec. ), no. 65938/09, §§ 17 and 19, 1 June 2010, and Zverev v. Russia ( dec. ), no. 16234/05, § 12, 3 July 2012).

8. The Court notes that in this case, the applicant explicitly raised the complaint about the conditions of his detention in his letter of 9 June 2016 dispatched on the same date.

9. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that 9 June 2016 should be considered as the date of the introduction of the application.

III. THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 28262/07

10. The applicant, Mr Novinskiy , (application no. 28262/07) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant ’ s wife , Mrs Olga Aleksandrovna Novinskaya , expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request.

11. The Court considers that the applicant ’ s wife has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of Mr Novinskiy ’ s right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention (see Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006, and Livada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 21262/06, §§ 34-35, 26 June 2014).

12. Accordingly, the Court holds that Mrs Novinskaya has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 28262/07 on behalf of the late applicant, Mr Novinskiy .

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. 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 60800/08, §§ 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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

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

18. In applications nos. 28262/07, 36825/16 and 58980/16 the 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-founde d 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (cited above, §§ 38-45, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia) and Fetisov and Others v. Russia (nos. 43710/07 and 5 others , §§ 139-145, 17 January 2012, regarding inappropriate interference with the right of individual petition) .

VI. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

19. In application no. 28262/07, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

20. The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

VI . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21. 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.”

22. 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.

23. 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 Mrs Novinskaya , the wife of the applicant in application no. 28262/07, has locus standi in the proceedings;

3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention 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 application no. 28262/07 inadmissible;

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

5. 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);

6. 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.

7 . Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy 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

Representative name and location

Facility

S tart 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]

28262/07

01/03/2007

Ernest Ernestovich Novinskiy

21/10/1963

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna

Strasbourg

IK-26

Samara Region

23/08/2006 to

02/01/2009

2 year(s) and

4 month(s) and

11 day(s)

110 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, smelly wet cells, lack of privacy for toilet, toilet outside, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food

Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition - Interference with applicant ’ s correspondence.

12,000

23591/16

04/04/2016

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Serebrov

01/03/1963

Vinogradov

Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

FKU IK-1 FSIN Kostroma

01/09/2009 to

30/03/2016

6 year(s) and

6 month(s) and

30 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

2 m²

overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air

5,000

36825/16

09/06/2016

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Gromovoy

11/10/1983

Dunayeva

Alla Igorevna

Chelyabinsk

IK-2

Chelyabinsk

13/08/2015 to

18/12/2015

4 month(s) and

6 day(s)

lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

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

2,500

57399/16

14/09/2016

Aleksey Nikolayevich Perenesenko

23/02/1982

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

FKU IK-1

Kostroma

05/09/2014 to

09/08/2016

1 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

5 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

5,000

58980/16

30/09/2016

Nikita Olegovich Yerogodskiy

08/08/1990

Mezak

Ernest Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

IK-25

Syktyvkar

18/09/2015 to

02/04/2016

6 month(s) and

16 day(s)

IK-25

Syktyvkar

28/05/2016 to

22/07/2016

1 month(s) and

25 day(s)

2.5 m²

2.3 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air

lack of fresh air, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

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

3,900

60797/16

07/10/2016

Pavel Nikolayevich Petlenko

01/06/1974

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

FKU IK-1

Kostroma

07/02/2014

pending

More than

3 year(s) and

8 month(s) and

18 day(s)

130 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of space outdoor, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food

8,300

61695/16

08/10/2016

Oleg Borisovich Ryapyev

10/09/1971

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

IK-1

Kostroma

29/02/2016

pending

More than

1 year(s) and

7 month(s) and

27 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

1.9 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air

7,000

64181/16

24/10/2016

Aleksey Valentinovich Gridin

11/04/1990

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

IK-1

Tver Region

09/02/2011

pending

More than 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and

16 day(s)

60 inmate(s)

1 m²

3 toilet(s)

poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents

8,300

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