Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF NOCHEVKA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application no. 31681/16 and 6 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 Nochevka 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 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. 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 60800/08, §§ 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. 31681/16, 73268/16 and 75335/16, 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 n ot 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 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC ] (no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, §§ 103-108 concerning the conditions of transport of detainees) .

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 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

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

Amoun t awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]

31681/16

26/04/2016

Vitaliy Anatolyevich Nochevka

28/12/1981

IK-I

Syktyvkar

14/11/2015 to

25/08/2016

9 month(s) and

12 day(s)

48 inmate(s)

lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, insufficient number of sleeping places, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of food

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train, on 13/11/2015, 0,3 sq. m., overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light. ,

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

5,600

36260/16

14/06/2016

Akhmadzhon Kodirovich Khamidov

01/06/1954

IK-11

Nizhny Novgorod

18/06/2006

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 4 month(s) and

7 day(s)

140 inmate(s)

2.2 m²

6 toilet(s)

overcrowding, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet

9,300

39451/16

22/06/2016

Aleksandr Alekseyevich Ilyin

08/07/1972

IK-11

Nizhny Novgorod

20/11/2011 to

08/11/2016

4 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

20 day(s)

2.2 m²

6 toilet(s)

overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

6,300

61780/16

21/11/2016

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Groshev

22/05/1990

IK-25

Kirov Region

06/07/2016 to

12/10/2016

3 month(s) and

7 day(s)

6 inmate(s)

2.3 m²

lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to shower, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of legal notice

2,100

68809/16

07/11/2016

Aleksey Aleksandrovich Titov

17/10/1968

IK-11

Nizhny Novgorod

01/06/2015

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)

2.2 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen

8,000

73268/16

18/11/2016

Leonid Vladimirovich Shibashov

24/02/1987

IK-5

Mordoviya

23/08/2016

pending

More than 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and

2 day(s)

70 inmate(s)

1 m²

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease

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

5,800

75335/16

15/11/2016

Yuriy Vladimirovich Rudak

06/10/1961

IK-25

Kirov Region

15/06/2016 to

22/06/2016

8 day(s)

IK-25

Kirov Region

27/07/2016 to

03/08/2016

8 day(s)

IK-25

Kirov Region

24/08/2016 to

31/08/2016

8 day(s)

1.3 m²

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

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell

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

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

1,000

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

Menu

CASE OF NOCHEVKA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF NOCHEVKA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI