Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 9150/05, 4307/08, 19070/08, 33463/08, 40928/08, 50139/08, 54919/08, 56523/08, 60244/08, 15616/09, 18437/09, 42124/09, 55689/09, 59733/09, 1607/10, 3936/10, 8298/10, 46398/10, 71197/11, 40631/12, 53963/12, 57932/12, 66725/12, 75430/12, 75718/12, 22168/13, 23402/13, 27657/13 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 November 2016

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

In the case of Zadonskiy and Others v. Russia ,

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

Branko Lubarda , President, Pere Pastor Vilanova , Georgios A. Serghides , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2016 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in twenty-eight applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix.

2 . The Russian Government (“the Gove rnment”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . The applications were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

4 . All the applicants were convicted by Russian courts and given custodial sentences.

5 . They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations.

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 that the conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

A. The Government ’ s request for the case to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention

8 . The Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the cases out of its list. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and offered to pay a sum of money.

9 . The applicants rejected the Government ’ s settlement offer.

10 . Having studied the terms of the Government ’ s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government have acknowledged a breach of the applicants ’ right to the protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in comparable cases (see Yepishin v. Russia , no. 591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08 , 16 October 2014; Butko v. Russia , no. 32036/10 , 12 November 2015, and Badretdinov and Others v. Russia , no. 28682/07 et al., 19 July 2016) . Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case.

11 . For the above reasons, the Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaint.

B. Admissibility

12 . The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

C. Merits

13 . The Government did not dispute the applicants ’ factual submissions relating to the overcrowding in penitentiary facilities, a shortage of sanitary installations and their poor state of repair. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see 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.

14 . In the leading case of Butko v. Russia (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In the light of the material submitted to it, the Court finds that the applicants had been detained in the conditions which were inhuman and degrading.

15 . There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT MR MIRONOV

16 . The applicant Mr Mironov (application no. 4307/08) further complained that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints about the conditions of detention, in breach of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention which provides:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

17 . The Court has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government in cases concerning inadequate conditions of an applicant ’ s detention and found them to be lacking in many regards. The Court has held, in particular, that the Government were unable to show what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or any other State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant ’ s personal situation alone (see, generally, the authorities cited in Ananyev and Others , § 99 and ‒ specifically with regard to correctional colonies ‒ Butko , cited above, §§ 43-47, with further references).

18 . Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court declares this complaint admissible and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint about the conditions of detention in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

I V . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

19 . 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.”

20 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law ( see Sergey Babushkin (just satisfaction), Butko and Badretdinov , all cited above, and Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia , nos. 11215/10 and 55068/12, § 30, 13 September 2016 ) , the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums listed in the Appendix.

21 . 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Mr Mironov ;

6 . 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 8 November 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President

A PPENDIX

Application No.

Lodged on

Applicant Date of birth Place of residence

Detained, from

Detained, until

Facility

Award, euros

9150/05

02/05/2006

Sergey Mikhaylovich ZADONSKIY

08/02/1956

Lesnoy

03/07/2001

22/02/2006

IK-5

Mordoviya Repubic

14,800

4307/08

10/12/2007

Andrey Yuryevich MIRONOV

18/02/1987

Chaykovskiy

14/10/2006

18/06/2007

IK-38

Perm Region

5,000

19070/08

03/08/2008

Igor Oksanovich USOV

23/07/1956

Olovyannaya

07/10/2004

03/08/2008

IK-7

Zabaykalskiy Region

13,500

33463/08

16/01/2009

Yuriy Yuryevich STASYUK

16/05/1961

Moscow

01/06/2008

14/11/2008

IK-11

Nizhniy Novgorod Region

5,000

40928/08

06/07/2008

Anatoliy Nikolayevich TIMOFEYEV

16/08/1955

Megra

28/08/2004

19/01/2012

IK-17

Vologda Region

15,000

50139/08

04/07/2008

Albert Kukurovich CHELIDZE

26/03/1965

Vorgashok

24/11/2006

15/12/2008

IK-8

Komi Republic

8,250

54919/08

26/01/2009

Efletdin Akhmedkhanovich BEDIRKHANOV

04/04/1965

Bor

15/05/2008

12/10/2008

IK-11

Nizhniy Novgorod Region

5,000

56523/08

07/04/2009

Aleksandr Pavlovich SHCHERBAKOV

19/01/1975

Narimanov

28/02/2008

24/01/2010

IK-6

Astrakhan

7,750

60244/08

12/09/2008

Dmitriy Valeryevich MOYSYUK

29/01/1974

Nelidovo

15/09/2008

30/03/2012

IK-8

Tver Region

12,500

15616/09

13/04/2009

Aleksandr Nikolayevich POTAPOV

04/09/1969

Bataysk

15/12/2007

13/04/2009

IK-15

Rostov Region

6,000

18437/09

21/02/2009

Rais Nazifovich ALKIN

13/07/1959

Perm

08/10/2005

27/08/2008

IK-9

Perm Region

10,500

42124/09

28/08/2009

Gleb Yuryevich SMOLNIKOV

17/10/1988

Bataysk

18/10/2008

28/08/2009

IK-15

Rostov Region

5,000

55689/09

03/12/2009

Timur Albertovich GALEYEV

23/02/1978

Kazan

13/07/2009

01/09/2009

IK-19

Tatarstan Republic

5,000

59733/09

23/12/2009

Aleksandr Nikolayevich SINICHKIN

02/08/1980

Bataysk

04/12/2007

23/12/2009

IK-15

Rostov Region

8,000

1607/10

07/12/2009

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SINYANSKIY

04/10/1968

Novosibirsk

13/02/2008

03/03/2010

IK-18

Novosibirsk Region

8,000

3936/10

24/03/2011

Nikolay Anatolyevich NOVOSELTSEV

26/09/1972

Barabinsk

21/07/2010

24/01/2011

IK-10

Novosibirsk Region

5,000

8298/10

14/04/2010

Vladislav Petrovich DOVGAN

22/01/1974

Bataysk

12/05/2006

14/04/2010

IK-15

Rostov Region

13,750

46398/10

07/09/2009

Natalya Nikolayevna SVETLOVA

01/02/1952

Nizhniy Novgorod

20/04/2007

18/09/2009

IK-2

Nizhniy Novgorod

9,500

71197/11

26/10/2011

Leonid AKSENTE

11/02/1970

Chișinău

27/06/2011

16/04/2012

IK-6

Tver Region

5,000

40631/12

06/06/2012

Yuriy Vladimirovich LAGUNOV

26/09/1967

Uva

21/08/2010

16/03/2012

IK-5

Kirov Region

6,500

53963/12

30/04/2012

Eduard Sharimzyanovich KASFATOV

27/01/1970

Salavat

07/09/2010

14/08/2012

IK-29

Kirov Region

7,750

57932/12

24/07/2012

Viktor Vasilyevich VIDANOV

23/09/1960

Sorda

10/06/2011

22/04/2012

IK-3

Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region

5,000

66725/12

14/09/2012

Vadim Aleksandrovich TEREKHOV

28/12/1975

Voronezh

19/03/2010

23/03/2012

IK-3

Voronezh Region

8,000

75430/12

03/08/2012

Dmitriy Yuryevich LUZGIN

21/06/1968

Serpukhov

28/11/2011

14/01/2013

IK-11

Nizhniy Novgorod Region

5,250

75718/12

08/11/2012

Artur Aleksandrovich KOSITSYN

15/05/1977

Nizhniy Tagil

03/10 /2011

08/11/2012

IK-13

Sverdlovskiy Region

5, 00 0

22168/13

26/02/2013

Artur Ruslanovich TEKEYEV

15/06/1984

Nizhniy Tagil

15/07/2012

26/02/2013

IK-13

Sverdlovskiy Region

5,000

23402/13

05/03/2013

Vladislav Vladimirovich PATRATIY

03/06/1975

Severnyy

19/10/2008

05/03/2013

High Security Prison in the Ulyanovsk Region

14,400

27657/13

01/09/2010

Aleksey Ivanovich BUSOV

05/09/1968

Kungur

01/12/2009

01/05/2010

OIK-2 / IK-1

Perm Region

5,000

Menu

CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI