THIRD SECTION

CASE OF RUDENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application s no s . 24056/13, 29927/13 and 61878/13 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 September 2016

This judgment is final . It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Rudenkov 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 Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 1 September 2016,

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”).

3 . Having studied the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.

THE FACTS

4 . The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5 . 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

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 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.”

8 . 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).

9 . 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.

10 . 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.

11 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12 . Some 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 Ananyev and Others case (cited above, § 119) .

IV . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13 . 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.”

14 . 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.

15 . 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 22 September 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom Deputy 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) [i]

24056/13

03/09/2011

Igor Vasilyevich RUDENKOV

11/08/1963

IZ-47/6 St Petersburg

19/08/2011 to

01/09/2011

14 days

Overcrowding.

Toilet without lid was not separated from the living area. The flushing system of the toilet did not function and inmates filled an ordinary cup with water from the sink to eliminate waste. Lack of natural light and ventilation. The air heavy with cigarette smoke. Dim electric light 24/7. No walks and shower. Poor quality of drinking water. No hot water. Toiletry items not provided. Clothes provided not in full range.

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

5,000

29927/13

18/04/2013

Andrey Alekseyevich KAVERIN

04/10/1981

Izvekov Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich

St Petersburg

IZ-47/1 St Petersburg

30/11/2012 to

08/03/2013

3 months and 9 days

1 m²

Toilet not separated from the living area. Inadequate food quality. The walls of the cells were covered with mould. Infestation with woodlice, cockroaches and other insects. Lack of heating in winter. Lack of ventilation. Dim electric light 24/7. Weekly shower for 15 minutes. Unsanitary conditions in shower including mould on the walls.

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

5,000

61878/13

16/07/2013

Denis Olegovich KOCHEMAYKIN

14/04/1983

Smirnov Mikhail Vladimirovich

St Petersburg

IZ-47/1 St Petersburg

01/02/2013 to

23/05/2013

3 months and 23 days

1.9 m²

No hot water. Lack of heating in winter. No ventilation. Toilet not separated from the living area. Daily walk for merely an hour. Weekly shower for 15 minutes.

5,000

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