European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SHESTAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 78378/13 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 May 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Shestakov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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 and 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 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 were inadequate.

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

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

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 Sergey Babushkin case (cited above, §§ 38-45).

IV.  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, to its case-law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, 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.  Declares the applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications 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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Karen Reid                                                                     Luis López Guerra
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	Number of inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade	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.	78378/13 30/09/2013	Aleksey Sergeyevich Shestakov 11/12/1976	Ponaryev Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kirov	IK-11 Kirov Region 20/05/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s)	70 inmate(s)   5 toilet(s)	5 washstands for 70 inmates, cold temperatures in winter time (13 degrees Celsius)	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	13,800
2.	33307/14 27/12/2014	Sergey Nikolayevich Kulikov 23/04/1983		Prison hospital no. LIU-51 Sverdlovskiy Region 04/10/2013 to 27/06/2014 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)	75 inmate(s) 2 m² 3 toilet(s)	3 washstands for 75 inmates, insects and mice, one of three toilets had broken flushing system, stench, no privacy when using toilet, possibility to wash himself once in 8 days, no ventilation, low temperature	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	3,900
3.	33405/14 03/07/2014	Lyudmila Mikhaylovna Lysanova 03/11/1975		IK-5 Tver 15/08/2008 pending More than 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s)	250 inmate(s) 1 m² 11 toilet(s)	10 washstands for 117 inmates, no partition between toilets and thus no privacy, no flushing system, stench, high humidity, insects and rodents, mould, poor requisite medical assistance	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	13,300
4.	33600/14 05/06/2014	Aleksey Alekseyevich Belov 07/02/1982		IK-29 Kirov Region 28/12/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 3 day(s)	1.8 m²	poor lighting, no ventilation, 10 sinks for 208 inmates, poor quality of food, low temperature, rodents, high humidity, no privacy when using toilet	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	13,500
5.	37789/14 19/08/2014	Aleksandr Nikolayevich Filtsov 01/04/1966		IK-5 Republic of Mordovia 23/07/2002 pending More than 14 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s)	300 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 15 toilet(s)	overcrowding, poor quality of food, no hot water, lack of requisite medical assistance	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	13,000
6.	38078/14 12/08/2014	Aleksandr Nikolayevich Bykov 20/03/1968		IK-12 Sverdlovskiy Region 11/12/2002 pending More than 14 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 20 day(s)	2 m²	poor lighting, poor quality of food, no ventilation, lack of requisite medical assistance	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	13,000
7.	51194/15 01/11/2011 (4 applicants)	Kotik Usubovich Ameyan   Vyacheslav Mironovich Gavrilin   Gagik Vaniyayevich Piroyev   Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Yudin	Maryin Sergey Trofimovich Saransk	IK-7 Republic of Mordovia 01/11/2011 pending More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 30 day(s)	2 m²	One hour of daily outdoor exercises, poor sanitary conditions, poor lighting, high humidity and mould, insects, no drinking water, tuberculosis and hepatitis-infected inmates in the cell	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	18,300

 

 




---

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