European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF TERENINA v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 46144/12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 November 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Terenina 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:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 46144/12) 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, Ms Yana Aleksandrovna Terenina (“the applicant”), on 2 July 2012.

2.  The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

3.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of her detention. She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

4.  The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

5.  The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of her detention. She 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.”

She also argued that she did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the detention conditions. The applicant cited Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“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.”

6.  The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant. In particular, they acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in poor conditions in violation of the guarantees provided for by Article 3 of the Convention and that she did not have an effective domestic remedy in his respect of her complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant 5,400 euros and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s judgement. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The declaration did not mention any other complaints raised by the applicant and communicated to the Government.

7.  The applicant informed the Court that she agreed to the terms of the declaration.

8.  The Court reiterates the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government and will treat it as a friendly settlement between the parties pertaining to the part of the application under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy to complain about it.

9.  It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties as regards a part of the application. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the part of the application in so far as it concerned Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

10.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.

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

11.  The applicant 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 154, 22 May 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012 and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 87-98, ECHR 2006-III;.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  Finally, the applicant made other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  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.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  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 sum indicated in the appended table.

16.  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 strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention insofar as it concerns the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the poor conditions of detention and lack of an effective remedy to complain about it;

 

 2.  Declares the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

 

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

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 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 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Hasan Bakırcı                                                              Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar                                                                   President




APPENDIX

Application 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	Specific grievances	Other complaints under well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1]
1.	46144/12 02/07/2012	Yana Aleksandrovna TERENINA 27/10/1990	Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich Moscow	Police Department of the Basmanniy District of Moscow 07/01/2012 to 11/01/2012 5 day(s)	no food, cells without toilet and water supply system, waited to be taken by the policemen to the toilet outside of the cells, no beds - the applicant slept either on the floor or on a bench, lack of sitting places, lack of natural light, dim electric light, cold cell - no heating, no toiletries provided	Art. 5 (1) (c) - unrecorded detention of the applicant,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention ,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention	1,100

 

 




---

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