Search
document

CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 28682/07, 24101/08, 7288/09, 18211/09, 32285/09, 42339/09, 73440/10, 58920/11, 68901/11, 37207/12, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-164910

Document date: July 19, 2016

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 28682/07, 24101/08, 7288/09, 18211/09, 32285/09, 42339/09, 73440/10, 58920/11, 68901/11, 37207/12, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-164910

Document date: July 19, 2016

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Applications nos. 28682/07, 24101/08, 7288/09, 18211/09, 32285/09, 42339/09, 73440/10, 58920/11, 68901/11, 37207/12, 37214/12, 59283/12, 62167/12, 74207/12, 46366/13, 56680/13 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

19 July 2016

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

In the case of Badretdinov 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 Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2016 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in sixteen 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 Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights .

3 . T he 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 inst allations.

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.

I I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7 . The applicant s 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 case s 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 declaration s , the Court is satisfied that the Government ha ve acknowledge d 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; and Butko v. Russia , no. 32036/10 , 12 November 2015) . Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declaration s 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 i s 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.

I II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16 . 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.”

17 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law in similar cases ( cited in paragraph 10 above ) , the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sum s listed in the Appendix .

18 . 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 application s out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention;

3 . Declares the application s admissible;

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

5 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 peri od plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 July 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Fatoş Aracı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

Application No .

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Detained from

Detained until

Facility

Award, euros

28682/07

10/02/2010

Sergey Anatolyevich BADRETDINOV

09/12/1984

Omsk

31/01/2007

15/11/2009

IK-9 Omsk

10 , 500

24101/08

15/07/2009

Konstantin Nikolayevich SHAMBIN

20/02/1975

Magnitogorsk

25/06/2006

25/01/2010

IK-16 Bashkortostan

12 , 500

7288/09

24/12/2008

Sergey Alekseyevich KUKOVSKIY

09/06/1964

Aleksandrovka

02/09/2006

07/10/2009

IK-15 Rostov

11 , 500

18211/09

08/04/2010

Mikhail Aleksandrovich KRIVENCHUK

11/04/1976

Ust-Labinsk

15/01/2009

13/10/2009

IK-13 Sverdlovskiy Region

5 , 000

32285/09

22/05/2009

Nikolay Anatolyevich BONDAREV

13/05/1973

Shvartsevskiy

15/04/2005

09/11/2011

IK-3 Ryazan

17 , 200

42339/09

21/07/2009

Oleg Igorevich SHISHENIN

09/05/1986

Karymskoye

01/06/2007

25/04/2009

IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region

7 , 500

73440/10

23/11/2010

Nikolay Vladimirovich PCHELIN

21/05/1977

Bogorodsk

03/03/2010

20/12/2010

IK-20 Nizhniy Novgorod

5 , 000

58920/11

21/10/2011

Vladislav Valentinovich MIKHAYLOV

06/02/1968

Yekaterinburg

01/09/2011

20/04/2013

IK-46 Sverdlovskiy Region

7 , 000

68901/11

13/10/2011

Sergey Lvovich KUKHAREV

06/09/1954

Davydovo

26/05/2011

23/12/2011

IK-9 Kursk

5 , 000

37207/12

09/04/2012

Oleg Ignatyevich LIKHANOV

29/03/1959

Astrakhan

10/06/2010

09/04/2012

IK-2 Astrakhan

7 , 500

37214/12

26/07/2012

Yuriy Yuryevich NAGAYEV

20/09/1973

Nefteyugansk

02/11/2010

17/01/2013

IK-46 Sverdlovskiy Region

8 , 500

59283/12

11/08/2012

Askar Sagimovich MUKHANOV

22/01/1973

Astrakhan

01/03/2010

16/02/2012

IK-2 Astrakhan

8 , 000

62167/12

08/01/2011

Oleg Leonovich ARTYUKHOV

25/07/1964

Arkhangelsk

13/07/2008

28/08/2012

IK-12 Arkhangelsk

14 , 200

74207/12

28/02/2011

Yevgeniy Anatolyevich PINIGIN

13/04/1973

Omsk

19/04/2010

22/11/2012

IK-2 Omsk

10 , 000

46366/13

19/06/2013

Ruslan Kazymovich KUBASHEV

22/02/1985

Ivdel

03/12/2009

19/06/2013

IK-56 Sverdlovskiy Region

12 , 500

56680/13

15/07/2013

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich SYROV

03/02/1987

Rodionovo-Nesvetayskaya

04/08/2011

04/11/2013

IK-9 Rostov

9 , 000

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant