European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF POTEKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 4998/08, 15336/08, 29075/09, 11100/10 and 54155/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

3 November 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Potekhin 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 13 October 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. They 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.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  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.”

7.  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).

8.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 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.

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 applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

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

11.  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, § 119); Shekhov v. Russia, no. 12440/04, §§ 41-47, 19 June 2014; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 95-98, 2 March 2006.

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  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.

V.  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 sums 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 join the applications;

 

2.  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 the applications inadmissible;

 

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

 

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

 

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 3 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]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
1.	4998/08 06/11/2007	Igor Vladimirovich POTEKHIN 23/08/1956	Markov Eduard Valentynovych Strasbourg	IK-5, Ivanovo region 23/08/2007 to 15/01/2010 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 24 day(s)	2 m²	lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food	Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) - lack of legal assistance for accused during appeal proceedings in his criminal case	12,000	500
2.	15336/08 11/02/2008	Sergey Viktorovich POLUKHIN 09/12/1963		IZ-24/1, Krasnoyarsk region 31/12/2004 to 28/08/2008 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)	2.5 m²	overcrowding	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings	16,900
3.	29075/09 28/04/2009	Vyacheslav Stepanovich KALINKIN 17/07/1964	Sokolova Irina Yevgenyevna Ivanovo	IK-5, Ivanovo region 23/11/2004 to 31/03/2009 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 9 day(s)                       IK-5, Ivanovo region 14/04/2009 to 04/04/2013 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 22 day(s)	2 m²                               2 m²	overcrowding, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of requisite medical assistance   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of requisite medical assistance, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	25,000
4.	11100/10 09/02/2010	Yevgeniy Ivanovich MURUGOV 11/03/1972		IZ-61/1, Rostov region 05/04/2008 to 01/07/2013 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s)	3 m²	inadequate temperature, overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention     Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings.	23,100	3,000
5.	54155/10 22/07/2010	Iosif Aronovich KATSIV 27/12/1955	Kolesnik Leyla Olegovna Rostov-on-Don	IZ-61/1, Rostov region 05/04/2008 to 01/07/2013 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s)	3 m²	inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings	23,100	3,000

 

 




---

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

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