THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 34649/16 and 6 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

This version was rectified on 10 Novemb e r 2017

under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court

STRASBOURG

12 October 2017

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

In the case of Smirnov 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 21 September 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 applicants were represented by Mr A. Vinogradov , a lawyer practising in Kostroma.

3. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under the Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6. 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

7. 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.”

8. 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).

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under the Article 13 of the Convention, in accordance with 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 v. Russia , no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013.

IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. 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.

15. 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 21 September 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

Start and end date

Duration

Number of 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]

34649/16

31/05/2016

Aleksey Sergeyevich Smirnov

02/04/1983

IK 1 Kostroma Region

20/06/2013 to

24/12/2015

2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)

Less than 2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.

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

5,000

65019/16

24/10/2016

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov

27/08/1982

IK-1 Kostroma Region

22/09/2014 to

21/09/2016

2 year(s)

100 inmate(s)

2 m²

Mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food.

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

5,000

65629/16

07/11/2016

Aleksandr Borisovich Zagvozdkin

19/11/1974

IK-1 Kostroma Region

14/07/2015

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 12 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

1.5-2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.

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

7,300

65638/16

07/11/2016

Aleksandr Anatolyevich Rozov

12/03/1963

IK-1 Kostroma Region

04/03/2016

pending

More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

1.5-2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities.

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

6,300

74100/16

29/11/2016

Natalya V aleryevna

Yantseva [2]

07/06/1978

OT 15/8 Kostroma

05/10/2014

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and

21 day(s)

1.6 m²

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

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

7,000

77794/16

21/11/2016

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Yablokov

21/01/1984

IK-1 Kostroma Region

22/03/2013

pending

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

100 inmate(s)

Less than 2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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.

7,300

77807/16

20/11/2016

Aleksandr Vladimirovich Solovyev

08/02/1986

IK-1 Kostroma Region

02/09/2014

pending

More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and

24 day(s)

100 inmate(s)

Less than 2 m²

Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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.

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

7,300

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

[2] Rectified on 10 November 2017: the text was " Natalya Vladimirovna Yantseva ".