CASE OF RUDIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 13050/17;75839/17;45978/18;46497/18;43919/20;26270/21;50383/21;22546/22;29932/22;34851/22;36524/22 • ECHR ID: 001-230873
Document date: February 15, 2024
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RUDIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13050/17 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rudik and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda , President , Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2024,
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 Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Russian Government (“the Governmentâ€) 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 detention under strict imprisonment regime. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023).
7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. In the leading case of N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020, 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the strict imprisonment regime applied to the applicants as life prisoners has been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the severe and excessive statutory measures inherent in that regime, aggravated by routine handcuffing.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC] (nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), Gorlov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019), and Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013).
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, N.T. , cited above), 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 period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date of detention under strict regime
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
13050/17
25/01/2017
Leonid Valeryevich RUDIK
1987
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region, IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region
4/10/2011 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
75839/17
17/10/2017
Maksim Viktorovich KISELEV
1981
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region, IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
25/11/2009 -
pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
45978/18
06/09/2018
Andrey Sergeyevich GADZHIYEV
1978
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
24/01/2013 strict regime in a prison
28/07/2015 general regime in a prison
09/06/2018 general regime in a colony
23/04/2019 strict regime in a colony – pending
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - in UK-288/T Krasnoyarsk Region from 03/03/2014 till 14/05/2018 - lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
5,000
46497/18
07/09/2018
Anatoliy Anatolyevich BERESTNEV
1961
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region, IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
26/06/2010-16/10/2017
17/10/2017 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - detention in different cells with video surveillance at IK-6 in Khabarovsk Region since 17/10/2017 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
4,000
43919/20
13/09/2020
Igor Valeryevich DVINYANIN
1978
IK-2 Perm Region
30/01/2017 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
26270/21
30/04/2021
Aleksey Mikhaylovich VOYEVODIN
1984
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region
24/04/2012 - 16/08/2021
3,000
50383/21
24/09/2021
Abdugani Sharifovich GANIYEV
1991
IK-2 Perm Region
03/12/2013 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
22546/22
21/03/2022
Mikhail Anatolyevich TETERIN
1979
IK-2 Perm Region
16/09/2015 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - on 13/02/2022, in the Perm Regional Court, by video link from IK-2 Perm Region
5,000
29932/22
11/05/2022
Roman Vladimirovich ALTUKHOV
1978
IK-2 Perm Region
14/12/2004 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - hearing on 14/01/2022 in the Perm Regional Court
5,000
34851/22
30/06/2022
Andrey Vladimirovich LITVINTSEV
1971
Yesina Tatyana Robertovna
Sevastopol
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
17/12/2013 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
36524/22
30/06/2022
Mikhail Sergeyevich ZAKHARIN
1979
Brsoyan Slavik Astribekovich
Moscow
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region
29/01/2008 - pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.