Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SHESTAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 78378/13 and 6 others -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 May 2017

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

In the case of Shestakov and Others v. Russia ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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 and 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. 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 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 case (cited above, §§ 38-45).

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, to its case ‑ law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application , 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 4 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]

78378/13

30/09/2013

Aleksey Sergeyevich Shestakov

11/12/1976

Ponaryev Vladimir Aleksandrovich

Kirov

IK-11 Kirov Region

20/05/2013

pending

More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and

11 day(s)

70 inmate(s)

5 toilet(s)

5 washstands for

70 inmates, cold temperatures in winter time (13 degrees Celsius)

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

13,800

33307/14

27/12/2014

Sergey Nikolayevich Kulikov

23/04/1983

Prison hospital no. LIU-51 Sverdlovskiy Region

04/10/2013 to

27/06/2014

8 month(s) and

24 day(s)

75 inmate(s)

2 m²

3 toilet(s)

3 washstands for

75 inmates, insects and mice, one of three toilets had broken flushing system, stench, no privacy when using toilet, possibility to wash himself once in 8 days, no ventilation, low temperature

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

3,900

33405/14

03/07/2014

Lyudmila Mikhaylovna Lysanova

03/11/1975

IK-5 Tver

15/08/2008

pending

More than 8 year(s) and

7 month(s) and

16 day(s)

250 inmate(s)

1 m²

11 toilet(s)

10 washstands for

117 inmates, no partition between toilets and thus no privacy, no flushing system, stench, high humidity, insects and rodents, mould, poor requisite medical assistance

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

13,300

33600/14

05/06/2014

Aleksey Alekseyevich Belov

07/02/1982

IK-29 Kirov Region

28/12/2012

pending

More than 4 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 3 day(s)

1.8 m²

poor lighting, no ventilation, 10 sinks for 208 inmates, poor quality of food, low temperature, rodents, high humidity, no privacy when using toilet

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

13,500

37789/14

19/08/2014

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Filtsov

01/04/1966

IK-5 Republic of Mordovia

23/07/2002

pending

More than 14 year(s) and 8 month(s) and

8 day(s)

300 inmate(s)

1.5 m²

15 toilet(s)

overcrowding, poor quality of food, no hot water, lack of requisite medical assistance

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

13,000

38078/14

12/08/2014

Aleksandr Nikolayevich Bykov

20/03/1968

IK-12 Sverdlovskiy Region

11/12/2002

pending

More than 14 year(s) and 3 month(s) and

20 day(s)

2 m²

poor lighting, poor quality of food, no ventilation, lack of requisite medical assistance

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

13,000

51194/15

01/11/2011

(4 applicants)

Kotik Usubovich Ameyan

Vyacheslav Mironovich Gavrilin

Gagik Vaniyayevich Piroyev

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Yudin

Maryin Sergey Trofimovich

Saransk

IK-7 Republic of Mordovia

01/11/2011

pending

More than 5 year(s) and

4 month(s) and

30 day(s)

2 m²

One hour of daily outdoor exercises, poor sanitary conditions, poor lighting, high humidity and mould, insects, no drinking water, tuberculosis and hepatitis-infected inmates in the cell

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

18,300

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