European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SASHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 31606/13 and 9 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 November 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Sashkov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,

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.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN CORRECTIONAL COLONIES

6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention in correctional colonies. 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 extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “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, §§ 36-40, 7 April 2005).

8.  In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, 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 in correctional colonies were inadequate.

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

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN A TEMPORARY DETENTION FACILITY

11.  In application no. 63742/16 the applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in temporary detention facility no. IZ-53/1 in Novgorod.

12.  The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by that complaint. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-53/1 and offered to pay him 3,700 euros. They 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 decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in respect of that complaint.

13.  The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from him accepting the terms of the declaration.

14.  The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”

15.  Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI)).

16.  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, 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).

17.  Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

18.  In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in the part concerning conditions of detention in the temporary detention facility (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

19.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application in this part may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

20.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part concerning the applicant’s conditions of the detention in temporary detention facility no. IZ-53/1.

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21.  In applications nos. 14964/17 and 15672/17, the applicants submitted complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in Russia).

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  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.”

23.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014 and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

24.  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.  Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of application no. 63742/16 and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

 

3.  Decides to strike application no. 63742/16 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in the part relating to the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a temporary detention facility;

 

4.  Declares the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the correctional colonies and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible;

 

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

 

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

 

7.  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 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting 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	Facility start and end date Duration	Inmates per brigade 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.	31606/13 28/12/2012	Aleksandr Vasilyevich Sashkov 14/10/1959	IK-56 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region 22/12/2009 pending More than 7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s)	3.6-9 m²	no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet; the same facility and conditions as in Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, 6 March 2014		19,500
2.	53568/16 23/11/2016	Roman Ildarovich Bolotov 24/11/1986	IK-46 Nevyansk 20/04/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s)	175 inmate(s) 1 m²	overcrowding, bunk beds, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature in cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents		7,800
3.	60287/16 07/12/2016	Mikhail Aleksandrovich Tokmantsev 08/12/1982	IK-46 Nevyansk 01/01/2011 pending More than 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s)	180 inmate(s) 1.5 m²	overcrowding, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, insufficient number of sleeping places		7,800
4.	62184/16 06/02/2017	Dmitriy Vladimirovich Mishin 09/05/1980	IK-3 Ryazan Region 07/08/2009 to 09/01/2017 7 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 3 day(s)	2.5 m²	no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet		5,000
5.	62978/16 20/10/2016	Andrey Sergeyevich Ivanov 24/05/1980	IK-11, Nizhniy Novgorod Region 20/03/2007 pending More than 10 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 18 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.5 m²	overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities		8,000
6.	63742/16 18/10/2016	Sergey Nikolayevich Smirnov 16/06/1974	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region (УЗ-62/11) 30/05/2016 pending More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s)	120 inmate(s) 1.75 m²	overcrowding		6,300
7.	65010/16 27/10/2016	Andrey Yuryevich Kharlamov 16/07/1979	IK-1 Arkhangelsk 15/01/2010 to 25/04/2017 7 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)	1.6 m²	inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water		6,500
8.	79179/16 16/11/2016	Zhamil Zhavitovich Bikayev 19/12/1973	IK-56 Ivdel’ 11/12/2009 pending More than 7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 27 day(s)		poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; the same facility as in the case of Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, 6 March 2014		7,800
9.	14964/17 15/02/2017	Vyacheslav Viktorovich Minin 15/12/1972	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 04/09/2006 to 26/12/2016 10 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s)	1.5 m²	lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of toiletries, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no cutlery	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
10.	15672/17 14/02/2017	Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Mazayev 04/07/1987	IK-2, Zabaykalsk Region 28/01/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 10 day(s)	110 inmate(s) 2 m²	overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	7,000

 




---

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