European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FIRST SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 33302/08)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

 

16 October 2014

 

 

 

 

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




In the case of Vorobyev v. Russia,

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

          Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
          Julia Laffranque,
          Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Prebensen, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2014,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 33302/08) 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 a Russian national, Mr Anton Aleksandrovich Vorobyev (“the applicant”), on 14 April 2008.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  On 18 May 2010 the applicant’s complaints regarding the conditions of his pre-trial detention, a lack of an effective domestic remedy for that grievance, as well as about the absence of sufficient reasons for that detention and its excessive length were communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A.  Criminal proceedings

4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lived in Nizhny Novgorod prior to the events of the case.

5.  On 23 September 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery, theft, forgery and extortion.

6.  On 11 April 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.

7.  On 21 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment 11 April 2008 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it also ordered the applicant’s detention to continue for a further three months.

8.  By orders of 17 November 2008 and 16 February and 19 May 2009, the authorised period of the applicant’s detention was extended. These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant’s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention.

9.  On 24 November 2009 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to a six years and one month’s imprisonment.

B.  Conditions of detention

10.  Between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-52/1 of Nizhniy Novgorod. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.

THE LAW

I.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  By letter submitted on 17 January 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

12.  By the above declaration, the Russian authorities acknowledged a violation of Articles 3 and 5 §§ 3 of the Convention as alleged by the applicant, and stated their readiness to pay him a sum of money as just satisfaction.

13.  The applicant had been invited to comment on the Government’s unilateral declaration, if he so wished, but did not submit any comments.

14.  Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court observes that the Government did not acknowledge a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of a lack of an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about inhuman conditions of detention. Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that such declaration does 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.

15.  This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-52/1 of Nizhniy Novgorod between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 had been inhuman and degrading in violation 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.  Admissibility

17.  The Court notes that this complaint is 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.

B.  Merits

18.  The Government have acknowledged the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

19.  The applicant did not comment.

20.  Having regard to the applicant’s factual submissions and the Government’s acknowledgement, the Court considers that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Nizhniy Novgorod prison between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION

21.  The applicant also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been excessively long and that there existed no relevant and sufficient grounds for it. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

...

3.  Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

A.  Admissibility

22.  The Court notes that the complaint is 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.

B.  Merits

23.  The Government have acknowledged the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

24.  The applicant did not comment.

25.  Taking note of the Government’s acknowledgement, the Court considers that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessively long and devoid of relevant and sufficient reasons. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

26.  The applicant further complained that he did not dispose of an effective domestic remedy for his grievance concerning the inhuman conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, which provides that:

“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.”

27.  The Government submitted that there existed various remedies at the national level, in particular a civil claim whereby the applicant could seek compensation for the inadequate conditions of his detention.

28.  The applicant maintained his complaint.

29.  The Court has examined the effectiveness of various domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government, including civil claims for compensation, in a number of cases concerning inadequate conditions of detention and concluded that for the time being the Russian legal system does not dispose of an effective remedy for such grievances (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 82-87, 17 January 2012 and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 93-118, 10 January 2012).

30.  The Court finds no reason to depart from those findings in the present case. Accordingly, it declares the complaint admissible and finds that the applicant did not dispose of an effective domestic remedy for his complaints, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

V.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

31.  As to the remainder of the application, the Court 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, it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. Accordingly, the Court rejects it as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

32.  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.”

A.  Damage

33.  The applicant claimed 333,333 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

34.  The Government did not comment.

35.  Having regard to its case-law in similar cases, the Court awards the applicant EUR 15,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B.  Costs and expenses

36.  The applicant did not claim any costs or expenses. Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.

C.  Default interest

37.  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.  Declares the complaints regarding the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009, a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of that grievance, as well as the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for his pre-trial detention and its excessive length admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention;

 

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the judgment, EUR 15,600 (fifteen thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;

 

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 October 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Søren Prebensen                                                            Khanlar Hajiyev
Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President