CASE OF CHERNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 2199/05;15456/05;29127/06;13451/07;25894/09;41440/09;41687/09;62796/09 • ECHR ID: 001-171471
Document date: February 16, 2017
- Inbound citations: 2
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 15
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHERNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
( Application s no s . 2199/05 and 7 others - see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 February 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chernov and Others v. Russia ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom , President, Dmitry Dedov , Branko Lubarda , judges , and Karen Reid , Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 26 January 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 . The 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 ‑ 65, 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 ‑ 47 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 25894/09, 41440/09, 41687/09 and 62796/09 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108 and 139- 49, 22 May 2012), Shekhov v. Russia ( no. 12440/04, §§ 45-47, 19 June 2014), Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (n o. 5829/04, §§ 203- 48, 31 May 2011), Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007), Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 100- 19), Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 2 7236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016), Fetisov and Others v. Russia (nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 2766 8/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 139- 45, 17 January 2012), Kononenko v. Russia ( no. 33780/04; §§ 73 ‑ 76, 11 February 2011) and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (no. 30138/02, §§ 52-62, 7 June 2007) .
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 13451/07, 41440/09, and 62796/09 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Articl e 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
1 6. 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 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 applications nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 13451/07, 41440/09, and 62796/09 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints 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 16 February 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen Reid Helena Jäderblom 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
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]
2199/05
02/12/2004
Mikhail Stepanovich CHERNOV
01/01/1970
IVS Budennovsk
06/12/2003 to
16/12/2003
11 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
16/12/2003 to
27/01/2004
1 month(s) and
12 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
27/01/2004 to
24/02/2004
29 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
24/02/2004 to
27/03/2004
1 month(s) and
4 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
27/03/2004 to
04/04/2004
9 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
04/04/2004 to
13/05/2004
1 month(s) and 10 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
13/05/2004 to
22/05/2004
10 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
22/05/2004 to
05/10/2004
4 month(s) and
14 day(s)
IZ 61/1
Rostov-on-Don
05/10/2004 to
20/11/2004
1 month(s) and
16 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
21/11/2004 to
22/12/2004
1 month(s) and
2 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
22/12/2004 to
08/01/2005
18 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
08/01/2005 to
12/01/2005
5 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
12/01/2005 to
23/01/2005
12 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
23/01/2005 to
02/02/2005
11 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
28/05/2005 to
09/06/2005
13 day(s)
IZ-61/1
Rostov-on-Don
10/06/2005 to
23/06/2005
14 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
09/09/2005 to
02/10/2005
24 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
27/11/2005 to
29/11/2005
3 day(s)
IZ-61/1
Rostov-on-Don
30/11/2005 to
25/01/2006
1 month(s) and
27 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
26/01/2006 to
02/02/2006
8 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
15/03/2007 to
04/04/2007
21 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
04/04/2007 to
07/04/2007
4 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
07/04/2007 to
18/04/2007
12 day(s)
IVS Budennovsk
18/04/2007 to
21/04/2007
4 day(s)
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk
21/04/2007 to
09/07/2007
2 month(s) and
19 day(s)
IK-11 Stavropol
10/07/2007 to
25/08/2014
7 year(s) and
1 month(s) and
16 day(s)
1.1 m²
0.78 m²
1.1 m²
1.12 m²
1.3 m²
0.7 m²
1.3 m²
1.1 m²
0.8 m²
1.1 m²
1.6 m²
0.8 m²
1.4 m²
1.1 m²
0.5 m²
0.45 m²
0.9 m²
0.8 m²
2.5 m²
1.1 m²
2 m²
1.1 m²
3.3 m²
1 m²
1.1 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature
overcrowding, constant electric light, inadequate temperature
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, bunk beds
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions o f detention during transport -
Art. 5 (3) - excessive l ength of pre-trial detention -
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of de tention -
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings –
Art 6 (3)(c) - free legal aid - the applicant ’ s legal counsel was no t present at the appeal hearing -
Art. 13 - lack of any effe ctive remedy in domestic law -
Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition
- Repetitive placement of the applicant to the punishment cell shortly after communication of his case to the Government
25,000
15456/05
11/03/2005
Maksim Borisovich YERMILOV
13/09/1986
Gordeychik Aleksey Vladimirovich
Khabarovsk
IZ-1 Khabarovsk
27/09/2004 to
17/01/2006
1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and
22 day(s)
insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of requisite medical assistance
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions o f detention during transport -
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 8/1/2003-07/06/2005,
Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition
- a refusal to grant a visit to the lawyer and an access to a file as a hindrance under Art.34
6,950
29127/06
26/06/2006
Igor Vadimovich KAMAYEV
22/04/1975
Druzhkova Olga
Strasbourg
IZ-69/1
Tver Region,
IZ-77/1 Moscow
03/10/2003 to
27/07/2007
3 year(s) and
9 month(s) and
25 day(s)
4 inmate(s)
4.5 m²
lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
17,600
13451/07
06/02/2007
Aleksandr Semenovich DENISOV
20/09/1950
IVS Volodarskiy , IZ-30/2, IZ-30/1
13/11/2004 to
13/04/2006
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
1 day(s)
IK-6 Astrakhan
09/10/2006
pending
More than
10 year(s) and
25 day(s)
12 inmate(s)
2.5 m²
18 inmate(s)
2.1 m²
overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet
25,000
25894/09
17/04/2009
Nikolay Nikolayevich GONTAREV
23/12/1974
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
IZ-42/1 Kemerovo
01/03/2007 to
27/02/2010
2 year(s) and
11 month(s) and 27 day(s)
30 inmate(s)
1.2 m²
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - From 01/03/2007 to 27/02/2010,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - From 01/03/2007 to 27/02/2010
14,300
41440/09
10/07/2009
Mikhail Gennadyevich ALESHIN
27/01/1962
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
T-2 Vladimir Region
18/03/2009 to
04/04/2012
3 year(s) and
18 day(s)
16 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inade quate conditions of detention
11,300
41687/09
23/07/2009
Aleksandr Ivanovich BAKHMUTSKIY
16/09/1969
IK-5
Rostov Region,
MOTB-19 Rostov- na - Donu ,
IK-9 Shakhty,
IZ-61/1
Rostov- na - Donu ,
IZ-5
Rostov Region,
IK-15 Bataysk
26/01/2008 to
02/12/2011
3 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
7 day(s)
23 inmate(s)
1.2 m²
lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, small exercise yard
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - the domestic courts did not ensure his presence at the hearings of
8 July 2011 ( Oktyabrsk District Court) and 31 October 2011 (Rostov Regional Court)
Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition
- Censorship of correspondence with the Court of 7 August 2009 and the pressure exercised by prison authorities in relation with his application before the Court. Censorship of correspondence of 21 September 2009 with Chakhty Munic ipal Court of the Rostov Region
17,900
62796/09
28/10/2009
Andrey Mikhaylovich BABAYEV
08/05/1965
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
IK-20 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
16/07/2009 to
21/11/2009
4 month(s) and
6 day(s)
3 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
overcrowding
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inad equate conditions of detention
5,000
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.