Lexploria

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PASIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 83994/17 and 6 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 February 2023

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

In the case of Pasikov and Others 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 19 January 2023,

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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 and the insufficiency of the compensation awarded to them by the national courts in that respect.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They further alleged that the compensation awarded to them by domestic courts under the Compensation Act (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17, §§ 59-64, 17 March 2020) had been inadequate. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

Article 13

“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.”

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 ‑ 65, 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 (see, amongst many authorities, MurÅ¡ić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122 ‑ 41, ECHR 2016, and Karalevičius v. Lithuania , no. 53254/99, §§ 36 ‑ 40, 7 April 2005).

8. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, 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 under Article 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. As to the applicants’ victim status, the Court does not lose sight that the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of the Convention, as regards the conditions of their post ‑ conviction detention. It notes, however, that the redress provided to them at the national level was considerably lower than the amounts awarded in comparable cases by the Court and, therefore, cannot be regarded as sufficient to deprive the applicants of their victim status (compare Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014).

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

11. In view of the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ grievances under Article 13 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, Sergey Babushkin, (just satisfaction), cited above, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, nos. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Inmates per brigade

Sq. m per inmate

Number of toilets per brigade

Specific grievances

Compensation proceedings

Name of the court

Date of the judgment

Award

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

83994/17

06/12/2017

Vladimir Vladimirovich PASIKOV

1959IK-9 Volgograd Region

05/05/2016 to 19/11/2019

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 15 day(s)

110 inmate(s)

1.3 m²

inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking

Volgograd Regional Court, 20/07/2022,

RUB 40,000

(approximately EUR 600)

10,400

7871/18

09/01/2018

Artem Valeryevich SUNTSOV

1979Shirokov

Oleg Valeryevich

Nizhniy Tagil

IK-8 Sverdlovsk Region

04/12/2014 to 08/06/2019

4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)

150 inmate(s)

0.8-2.5 m²

4 toilet(s)

overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, inadequate state of the brigades’ buildings, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 06/09/2021,

RUB 100,000

(approximately EUR 1,200)

8,100

14341/18

05/03/2018

Yan Nikolayevich NIKOLAYEV

1971Shirokov

Oleg Valeryevich

Nizhniy Tagil

IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region

29/04/2017 to 25/05/2021

4 year(s) and 27 day(s)

150 inmate(s)

2-2.4 m²

2 toilet(s)

inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to running water, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 25/10/2021,

RUB 100,000

(approximately EUR 1,230)

11,300

28884/18

07/06/2018

Vasiliy

Lvovich BOGDANOV

1982Shirokov

Oleg Valeryevich

Nizhniy Tagil

IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region

24/03/2012 to 19/03/2021

8 year(s) and

11 month(s) and

24 day(s)

1.9 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 22/07/2021,

RUB 80,000

(approximately EUR 690)

11,800

2581/19

13/12/2018

Eduard Viktorovich PURIK

1978Bayanova

Olga Sergeyevna

Severouralsk

IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region

01/02/2017 to 30/04/2021

4 year(s) and 3 month(s)

120 inmate(s)

2 m²

2 toilet(s)

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to running water

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 09/03/2022,

RUB 48,000

(approximately EUR 480)

11,800

5038/19

25/12/2018

Ivan Anatolyevich STRADANOV

1987Bayanova

Olga Sergeyevna

Severouralsk

IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region

07/03/2010 to 29/04/2020

10 year(s) and

1 month(s) and 23 day(s)

150 inmate(s)

1 m²

3 toilet(s)

lack of requisite medical assistance, overcrowding, poor quality of food

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 06/09/2021,

RUB 100,000

(approximately EUR 1,200)

8,500

5439/19

27/12/2018

Anatoliy Mikhaylovich GNEVANOV

1982Bayanova

Olga Sergeyevna

Severouralsk

IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region

01/01/2014 to 14/01/2022

8 year(s) and 14 day(s)

160 inmate(s)

1.9 m²

overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, high humidity in dormitory, lack of fresh air

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 09/03/2022,

RUB 96,000

(approximately EUR 960)

11,500

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

Menu

CASE OF PASIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

CASE OF PASIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

LEXI