THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DANILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s nos. 355/16 and 5 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 May 2017

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

In the case of Danilov 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 Karen Reid Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 27 April 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 a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “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, § 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 145 ‑ 147 and 149).

8. In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54 ‑ 64, 12 November 2015, 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. 1079/16 and 4415/16, 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-founded within the meaning of Ar ticle 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 Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 119, 10 January 2012 .

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, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , § 181, ECHR 2016; Mozharov and Others v. Russia , no. 16401/12 and 9 others, § 14, 21 March 2017 ; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012), 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 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 18 May 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Karen Reid Luis López Guerra 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

Start and end date

Duration

Number of 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]

355/16

03/12/2015

Nikolay Vladimirovich DANILOV

15/01/1984

Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV

Kostroma

IK-1 Kostroma region

02/04/2013 to

03/06/2015

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

2 m²

infestation of the cell with insects, lack of proper hygienic facilities, overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light

5,000

619/16

02/11/2015

Vyacheslav Vyacheslavovich KONONENKO

29/01/1984

IK-17 Krasnoyarsk (segregation unit)

07/05/2015 to

29/05/2015

23 day(s)

2.2-3 m²

lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air

1,000

1079/16

08/12/2015

Aleksandr Viktorovich SHALAYKO

09/01/1980

Margarita Vladimirovna GORDEYEVA

Astrakhan

IK-2 Astrakhan

11/04/2008 to

25/01/2012

3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 15 day(s)

IK-2 Astrakhan

25/01/2012 to

25/08/2015

3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)

162 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

3 toilet(s)

58 inmate(s)

0.9 m²

1 toilet(s)

insufficient number of beds in the cell, poor quality of food, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, infestation of the cell with insects, bath once a week, 10 to 14 minutes, tv set constantly on, absence of winter clothes

lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, insufficient number of beds in the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, absence of winter clothes, shower once a week, 8 to

12 minutes

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

5,000

2930/16

09/12/2015

Namir Khidirovich MIRZEKULIYEV

23/08/1988

Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV

Kostroma

IK-4, Ostrovsk District, Kostroma Region

11/02/2010 to

02/07/2015

5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 day(s)

1.5-2 m²

3 toilet(s)

infestation of the cell with insects, poor quality of food, lack of (sufficient) natural light, infestation of the cell with rats, lack of sufficient hygienic facilities

5,000

4415/16

10/12/2015

Maksim Vladimirovich POLETAYEV

23/08/1988

Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV

Kostroma

IK-1 Kostroma region

23/10/2012 to

30/06/2015

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)

<2 m²

4 toilet(s)

poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of hygienic facilities

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

5,000

7249/16

20/01/2016

Fedor Nikolayevich GONCHAROV

07/04/1982

IK-15 Norilsk

24/04/2014 to

29/09/2015

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

120 inmate(s)

6 toilet(s)

lack of fresh air, lack of toilet privacy

5,000

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