European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF BRISKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 61034/09, 32728/10, 26317/12 and 7971/15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

6 October 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Briskin 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 15 September 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”).

3. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations submitted in certain cases, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.

THE FACTS

4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.  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, §§ 139-165, 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, §§ 145-147 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.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 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, Ananyev and Others (cited above) and Butko (also cited above)), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14.  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 certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;

 

3.  Declares the applications admissible;

 

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

 

5.  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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 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 / Date of registration	Representative name and location	Facility Start and end date Duration	Sq. m. per inmate	Specific grievances	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	61034/09 02/06/2011	Vladimir Moiseyevich BRISKIN 17/08/1957		IZ-34/1 Volgograd 05/05/2008 to 19/01/2011 2 years and 8 months and 15 days	0,7 m²	Fewer sleeping places than inmates, no privacy when using lavatory, no daily outdoor exercise, vermin, rodents in a cell.	10,300
2.	32728/10 07/05/2010	Oleg Nikolayevich SOROKIN 03/10/1965	Logvinenko Oleg Nikolayevich Kaluga	IVS Zhukovskiy Kaluga Region 17/11/2009 to 27/11/2009 11 days		No shower. no outdoor walks, no lavatory in a cell, a plastic bucket and bottles used instead, poor lighting, stench, paint odour.	5,000
3.	26317/12 16/03/2012	Ilya Andreyevich DYAKOV 05/06/1983		Hospital-prison, Arkhangelsk 08/02/2012 to 20/02/2012 13 days   IZ-35/2 Vologda 20/02/2012 to 01/03/2012 11 days	1 m²	Fewer sleeping places than inmates.	5,000
4.	7971/15 27/04/2015	Artem Anatolyevich IVANOV 15/07/1983		Special isolation compartment, Tver Town Court 15/03/2014 to 22/01/2015 10 months and 8 days	1.3 m²	Lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities	4,600

 

 




---

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