European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KOLEVATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 47696/10, 62151/10, 17790/11, 35535/12, 44590/12, 29586/13, 33709/13, 50624/13 and 2959/15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 November 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Kolevatov 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 Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,

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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declaration in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

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

8.  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, Kudła 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 a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “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, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145-47 and 149).

9.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others,cited above, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54-64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  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 applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  In applications nos. 62151/10, 17790/11, 29586/13, 33709/13 and ---2959/15, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-19; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49-53, 16 February 2016.

V.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  In applications nos. 62151/10, 17790/11 and 2959/15, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

14.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17.  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 some applications out of its list of cases;

 

3.  Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 62151/10, 17790/11 and 2959/15 inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;

 

5.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

6.  Holds

(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.

 

7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                              Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                   President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Facility Start and end date Duration	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]
1.	47696/10 12/05/2010	Andrey Vadimovich KOLEVATOV 10/07/1959		IZ-24/6 Startsevo Krasnoyarsk Region 08/01/2010 to 29/06/2010 5 month(s) and 22 day(s)	1,7 m²	Assembly cell in the remand prison: 0.45 sq. m. per inmate. The applicant, a non-smoker, was surrounded by smokers.		5,000
2.	62151/10 26/10/2010	Semen Vladimirovich MATYUSHKIN 21/08/1983	Davydova Svetlana Viktorovna Moscow	IZ-63/1 the Samara Region 27/12/2010 to 08/01/2011 13 day(s)     IZ-56/1 the Orenburg Region 09/01/2011 to 20/01/2011 12 day(s)	12 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 1 toilet(s)         10 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 1 toilet(s)	Overcrowding             overcrowding, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	6,500
3.	17790/11 04/03/2011	Oleg Igorevich KISTERNYY 30/01/1979	Lisovskaya Yelena Mikhaylovna Orsk	IZ-2 Orsk 31/03/2009 to 28/02/2012 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 29 day(s)	1.5 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities	Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings	14,000
4.	35535/12 26/04/2012	Andrey Svyatoslavovich SEMENIKHIN 07/09/1974		IZ-70/1 Tomsk 09/09/2011 to 20/01/2012 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)   IVS Seversk Tomsk region 21/09/2011 to 16/12/2011 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)	2,1 m²           4 m²	Low partition between the lavatory and the living space. The lavatory was one meter away from the dining table.     No ventilation, no fresh air, no outdoor exercises, no showers, no windows, dim light, insects and mice, low partition between the lavatory and the living space; the lavatory was one meter away from the dining table.		5,000
5.	44590/12 12/06/2012	Roman Nikolayevich POTAPOV 06/01/1972		IZ-75/1 Chita 03/12/2011 to 16/03/2012 3 month(s) and 14 day(s)	1.5 m²	not provided with an individual sleeping place, unsanitary conditions in the cell, toilet not separated from living area, infestation with mice, cockroaches, woodlice, lice and flies, bed linen never changed, no ventilation or fresh air, lack of light, inmates infected with tuberculosis, small walking yard of 10 sq. m. for 8 inmates, daily walk for 30-40 min., weekly shower for 20 min. with 2 shower heads for 8 inmates		5,000
6.	29586/13 08/04/2013	Andrey Petrovich BYKOV 27/05/1973		IVS Chemal Altay 02/12/2011 to 15/11/2012 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)	1,4 m²	No ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, no natural light, poor heating in winter, insects and rodents, no sink or pan, rather buckets as lavatory, no privacy when using the bucket, stench, no water, no shower, poor quality of food.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
7.	33709/13 16/04/2013	Dmitriy Gennadyevich VESLOVSKIY 04/09/1978		IZ-43/1 Kirov 29/09/2012 to 16/01/2013 3 month(s) and 19 day(s)	1.6 m²	No individual sleeping place, cement floor, no ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, unglazed window, lack of natural light, dim electric light, damp and cold cell, walls covered with mould and fungus, infestation with flies, cockroaches and spiders, toilet not separated from living area, no lavatory pan, dinner table located close to toilet, lack of toiletries, daily walk for one hour, small walking yard of 12 sq. m. for 14 inmates.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
8.	50624/13 25/06/2013	Rafis Nurlimanovich SHAYDULLIN 11/10/1977		IZ-63/1 Samara 15/06/2012 to 04/06/2013 11 month(s) and 21 day(s)	1,7- 4 m²	Irregular outdoor exercise of 40-45 minutes, fewer sleeping places than inmates, poor ventilation, dim light, the walls were covered with mould, poor quality of food, insects, low partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was one metre away from the dining table.		5,000
9.	2959/15 16/12/2014	Vladislav Albertovich KALININ 14/01/1964		Prison hospital No. LIU-10 Novosibirsk 20/05/2014 to 28/06/2014 1 month(s) and 9 day(s)	1.5 m²	dim electric light, no bedding and bed linen, infestation with insects and rodents, unsanitary conditions, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, lack of fresh air and ventilation, inmates infected with tuberculosis, itch and other infectious diseases	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000

 




---

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