European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF CHERNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 2199/05 and 7 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

16 February 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Chernov 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 Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 26 January 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. The 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

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, §§ 139-65, 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).

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.  In applications nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 25894/09, 41440/09, 41687/09 and 62796/09 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108 and 139-49, 22 May 2012), Shekhov v. Russia (no. 12440/04, §§ 45-47, 19 June 2014), Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, §§ 203-48, 31 May 2011), Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 75-115, 25 October 2007), Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 100-19), Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia (nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 48, 16 February 2016), Fetisov and Others v. Russia (nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 139-45, 17 January 2012), Kononenko v. Russia (no. 33780/04; §§ 73-76, 11 February 2011) and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (no. 30138/02, §§ 52-62, 7 June 2007).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In applications nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 13451/07, 41440/09, and 62796/09 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 nos. 2199/05, 15456/05, 29127/06, 13451/07, 41440/09, and 62796/09 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 16 February 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Karen Reid                                                                     Helena Jäderblom
       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.	2199/05 02/12/2004	Mikhail Stepanovich CHERNOV 01/01/1970		IVS Budennovsk 06/12/2003 to 16/12/2003 11 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 16/12/2003 to 27/01/2004 1 month(s) and 12 day(s)   IVS Budennovsk 27/01/2004 to 24/02/2004 29 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 24/02/2004 to 27/03/2004 1 month(s) and 4 day(s)     IVS Budennovsk 27/03/2004 to 04/04/2004 9 day(s)   IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 04/04/2004 to 13/05/2004 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)   IVS Budennovsk 13/05/2004 to 22/05/2004 10 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 22/05/2004 to 05/10/2004 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)       IZ 61/1 Rostov-on-Don 05/10/2004 to 20/11/2004 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 21/11/2004 to 22/12/2004 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)         IVS Budennovsk 22/12/2004 to 08/01/2005 18 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 08/01/2005 to 12/01/2005 5 day(s)           IVS Budennovsk 12/01/2005 to 23/01/2005 12 day(s)           IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 23/01/2005 to 02/02/2005 11 day(s)           IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 28/05/2005 to 09/06/2005 13 day(s)   IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don 10/06/2005 to 23/06/2005 14 day(s)         IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 09/09/2005 to 02/10/2005 24 day(s)           IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 27/11/2005 to 29/11/2005 3 day(s)   IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don 30/11/2005 to 25/01/2006 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 26/01/2006 to 02/02/2006 8 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 15/03/2007 to 04/04/2007 21 day(s)   IVS Budennovsk 04/04/2007 to 07/04/2007 4 day(s)         IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 07/04/2007 to 18/04/2007 12 day(s)   IVS Budennovsk 18/04/2007 to 21/04/2007 4 day(s)     IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk 21/04/2007 to 09/07/2007 2 month(s) and 19 day(s)     IK-11 Stavropol 10/07/2007 to 25/08/2014 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)	1.1 m²           0.78 m²             1.1 m²           1.12 m²               1.3 m²         0.7 m²             1.3 m²           1.1 m²                 0.8 m²               1.1 m²                   1.6 m²           0.8 m²                   1.4 m²                 1.1 m²                               0.5 m²                 0.45 m²                   0.9 m²           0.8 m²               2.5 m²             1.1 m²           2 m²               1.1 m²           3.3 m²           1 m²               1.1 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places         overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature         overcrowding, constant electric light, inadequate temperature       overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places       overcrowding, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell   overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, bunk beds	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport -   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention -   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention -   Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings -   Art 6 (3)(c) - free legal aid - the applicant’s legal counsel was not present at the appeal hearing -   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition  - Repetitive placement of the applicant to the punishment cell shortly after communication of his case to the Government	25,000
2.	15456/05 11/03/2005	Maksim Borisovich YERMILOV 13/09/1986	Gordeychik Aleksey Vladimirovich Khabarovsk	IZ-1 Khabarovsk 27/09/2004 to 17/01/2006 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 22 day(s)		insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of requisite medical assistance	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport -   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 8/1/2003-07/06/2005,   Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition  - a refusal to grant a visit to the lawyer and an access to a file as a hindrance under Art.34	6,950
3.	29127/06 26/06/2006	Igor Vadimovich KAMAYEV 22/04/1975	Druzhkova Olga Strasbourg	IZ-69/1 Tver Region, IZ-77/1 Moscow 03/10/2003 to 27/07/2007 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 25 day(s)	4 inmate(s) 4.5 m²	lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention	17,600
4.	13451/07 06/02/2007	Aleksandr Semenovich DENISOV 20/09/1950		IVS Volodarskiy, IZ-30/2, IZ-30/1 13/11/2004 to 13/04/2006 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)   IK-6 Astrakhan 09/10/2006 pending More than 10 year(s) and 25 day(s)	12 inmate(s) 2.5 m²           18 inmate(s) 2.1 m²	overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents     overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet		25,000
5.	25894/09 17/04/2009	Nikolay Nikolayevich GONTAREV 23/12/1974	Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg	IZ-42/1 Kemerovo 01/03/2007 to 27/02/2010 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)	30 inmate(s) 1.2 m²	lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - From 01/03/2007 to 27/02/2010,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - From 01/03/2007 to 27/02/2010	14,300
6.	41440/09 10/07/2009	Mikhail Gennadyevich ALESHIN 27/01/1962	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow	T-2 Vladimir Region 18/03/2009 to 04/04/2012 3 year(s) and 18 day(s)	16 inmate(s) 2.3 m²	lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	11,300
7.	41687/09 23/07/2009	Aleksandr Ivanovich BAKHMUTSKIY 16/09/1969		IK-5 Rostov Region, MOTB-19 Rostov-na-Donu, IK-9 Shakhty, IZ-61/1 Rostov-na-Donu, IZ-5 Rostov Region, IK-15 Bataysk 26/01/2008 to 02/12/2011 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 7 day(s)	23 inmate(s) 1.2 m²	lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, small exercise yard	Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - the domestic courts did not ensure his presence at the hearings of 8 July 2011 (Oktyabrsk District Court) and 31 October 2011 (Rostov Regional Court)    Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition  - Censorship of correspondence with the Court of 7 August 2009 and the pressure exercised by prison authorities in relation with his application before the Court. Censorship of correspondence of 21 September 2009 with Chakhty Municipal Court of the Rostov Region	17,900
8.	62796/09 28/10/2009	Andrey Mikhaylovich BABAYEV 08/05/1965	Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg	IK-20 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 16/07/2009 to 21/11/2009 4 month(s) and 6 day(s)	3 inmate(s) 1.8 m²	overcrowding	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.