THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SIDORETS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 59287/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 December 2022

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

In the case of Sidorets v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli, President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 3 December 2018.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

6. The Court notes that the applicant was detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicant’s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, §§ 118 ‑ 20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia , no. 42239/02, §§ 53 ‑ 60, 31 July 2008). 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 (see MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122 ‑ 41, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149 ‑ 59, 10 January 2012).

7. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

8. 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention during his transport were inadequate.

9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

10. The applicant submitted other complaint which also raised an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case ‑ law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tomov and Others , cited above, §§ 143-56, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about poor conditions of transport.

11. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

12. The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

15. The Court further 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,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Means of transport

Start and end date

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]

59287/18

03/12/2018

Aleksandr Sergeyevich SIDORETS

1976van, transit cell

17/08/2018 to

17/08/2018

van, transit cell

27/08/2018 to

27/08/2018

transit cell, van

09/01/2019 to

24/04/2019

van, train

13/07/2019 to

15/07/2019

van, train

29/08/2019 to

31/08/2019

0.3 m²

0.3 m²

0.1 m²

0.5 m²

0.3 m²

overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature

overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature

lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no ventilation, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, overcrowding

insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, overcrowding

overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

1,000

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