THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 34655/08 and 6 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 Galiyev 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 . 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, cited above , 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. Some applicants (cases nos. 34655/08, 60673/09, 37163/11, 69630/11, 71326/11) 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 Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 100-119, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia), Idalov v. Russia [G C] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-149, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention), Khodorkovskiy v. Russia ( no. 5829/04, §§ 203-248, 31 May 2011), Lebedev v Russia (no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007, regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters) and Nakhmanovich v. Russia (no. 55669/00, §§ 95-98, 2 March 2006, regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings).

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, Ananyev and Others, cited above, and Butko , cited above, § 68 ), 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 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]

34655/08

22/05/2008

Ilshat Samatovich GALIYEV

18/12/1972

Detention facility at the police department in Naberezhnye Chelny

16/10/2001 to

18/10/2001

3 day(s)

IVS Naberezhnye Chelny

18/10/2001 to

12/11/2001

26 day(s)

IZ-16/3 Bugulma

12/11/2001 to

24/07/2004

2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)

IZ-16/1 Kazan

25/07/2004 to

08/09/2007

3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 15 day(s)

IZ-77/1 Moscow

09/09/2007 to

10/02/2008

5 month(s) and 2 day(s)

IZ-52/1 Nizhny Novgorod

07/02/2008 to

14/04/2008

2 month(s) and 8 day(s)

6 m²

1.05 m²

1.4 m²

1.25 m²

2.2 m²

8.7 m²

No ventilation or fresh air. No natural or electric light. No toilet or hand-wash basin. Cement floor No food provided. No bed linen or bedding provided.

The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system, which allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. No natural light. Dim electric light. No ventilation or fresh air. Infestation with mice, cockroaches, spiders and bedbugs. No walks. No bedclothes, bedding, tableware or toiletries provided. Cement floor. No shower. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment provided. The air heavy with cigarette smoke.

The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. Lack of natural light. Dim electric light on 24/7. Infestation with rats, cockroaches, lice and bedbugs. Cement floor. Cold cells. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system, which allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Dinner table close to toilet. Poor food quality. No bedding, bed linen, tableware or toiletries. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment provided. Regular walks for one hour. Shower once in 10 days for 5 minutes. Dirty shower with walls covered with slime.

The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. Infestation with mice, cockroaches, lice and bedbugs. Dim electric light. Lack of natural light. No ventilation or fresh air. Walk once a day for one hour. Shower once in 10 days. Shower walls covered with slime. Shower and walks with inmates infected with tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Absence of a sink in the cell entailed the necessity to wash tableware over toilet. Cells without a dinner table or with one located close to toilet. Torn and dirty bedding. Bed linen not provided. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment or toiletries provided. Cement floor. Cold cells. The air heavy with cigarette smoke. Solitary confinement.

Infestation with rats and bedbugs. Inadequate separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Dinner table close to toilet. Torn and dirty bedding and bed linen. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment, toiletries provided.

No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Infestation with bedbugs. No bedclothes provided. Walks once a day per one hour. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment, toiletries provided.

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings -

25,000

60673/09

04/11/2009

Konstantin Borisovich ZVEREV

12/03/1967

IZ-47/4 St Petersburg

17/04/2008 to

18/07/2011

3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)

1.9 m²

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention -

15,600

37163/11

15/04/2011

Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAGORODNIY

21/11/1972

Mudarisov Rif Minetdinovich

Nefteyugansk

IVS Nefteyugansk

24/08/2010 to

06/12/2011

1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)

1.1 m²

overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law

7,800

37854/11

11/05/2011

German Viktorovich TITOV

20/11/1964

IZ-66/3 Nizhniy Tagil , Sverdlovsk Region

03/09/2010 to

18/11/2011

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)

2 m²

Constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is non-smoker.

Poor quality of food.

5,800

69630/11

21/09/2011

Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAYKOV

21/11/1972

IZ-74/3, IZ-74/1 Chelyabinsk

09/09/2009

pending

More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Medical facility LIU-3 Chelyabinsk

22/03/2011 to

29/06/2011

3 month(s) and 8 day(s)

1.2 m²

1 m²

No privacy when using lavatory. Insects. No access to natural light. No ventilation; constant cigarette smoke and the applicant is a non-smoker. Poor quality of food. Possibility to wash himself once in 10-15 days.

1 sink and 1 pan for 100-120 inmates.

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

21,300

71326/11

01/11/2011

Vladimir Borisovich NIKULSHIN

14/09/1971

Menshikov Aleksey

Rostov- na - Donu

IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don

19/05/2008 to

05/09/2010

2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)

IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don

13/11/2010 to

20/11/2010

8 day(s)

IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don

04/12/2010 to

15/07/2011

7 month(s) and 12 day(s)

0.5 m²

1.3 m²

1 m²

lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention -

14,300

66935/13

25/09/2013

Vasiliy Ivanovich SAVINOV

17/06/1972

IZ-21/2 Cheboksary Chuvashia

16/10/2011 to

26/04/2013

1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)

1.98 m²

Passive smoking. Limited access to natural light and fresh air. The cell had one window which was covered with metal bar. Walls covered with mould, dirty. Cell infected with bed-bugs, lice and mice. Facility administration did not provide inmates with cleaning products. Lavatory pan just one metre away from the table, separated from the living area by a partition less than 0.8 meter-high. Food very scarce and of poor quality.

6,800

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