European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF USTINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 18046/12 and 9 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 Ustinov 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. 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

6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“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 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.  In applications nos. 2507/14, 2788/14, 3069/14, 3361/14 and 5779/14, 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, 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.	18046/12 19/03/2012	Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Ustinov 19/01/1983	Borisov Oleg Vladimirovich Orenburg	IK-13 Orenburg Region 14/10/2011 to 14/04/2013 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)	210 inmate(s) 1.3 m² 6 toilet(s)	the applicant has to share his sleeping place with other inmates, noise from internal construction works does not allow to sleep at night, eight shower heads for 210 inmates		6,800
2.	1771/14 05/12/2013	Petr Vladimirovich Belov 21/06/1966		IK-4 Kostroma Region 24/09/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)	150 inmate(s) 1 m²	no separation between toilets, poor sanitary conditions, bedbugs, stench, high humidity, lack of requisite medical assistance		15,000
3.	2507/14 12/12/2013	Ivan Aleksandrovich Khlebnikov 05/02/1986		Punishment ward of prison hospital no. LIU-7 Astrakhan Region 27/05/2013 to 27/10/2013 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)		less than 16 Co in the cell, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	2,800
4.	2788/14 23/12/2013	Dmitriy Yevgenyevich Kuchumov 04/04/1986		IK-30 Perm Region 17/01/2013 to 13/11/2013 9 month(s) and 28 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s)	no ventilation, 6 sinks, no hot water, less than 5 minutes to wash himself weekly, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	4,300
5.	3069/14 23/12/2013	Sergey Vladimirovich Lysenko		IK-30 Perm Region 15/12/2011 to 23/09/2013 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 9 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s)	6 sinks, no hot water, 10 showers, no ventilation, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
6.	3361/14 27/11/2013	Lidiya Ivanovna Bronnikova 26/10/1968		IK-6 Altay Region 28/08/2011 to 14/10/2015 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)	150 inmate(s)   6 toilet(s)	6 sinks, hot water for 1.5 hour daily, poor quality of food, mould on the walls, overcrowding	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	10,800
7.	5779/14 03/12/2013	Mikhail Vladimirovich Karpenko 25/08/1984		IK-20 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 10/12/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)	200 inmate(s) 1.4 m²	7 sinks, no hot water, no ventilation, no access to fresh air, inadequate clothes and footgear, poor conditions of work in prison, insects, overcrowding, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - No long family visits.	15,000
8.	42337/14 18/05/2014	Sergey Aleksandrovich Gudiyev 04/09/1976		IK-1 Sukhobezvodnoye Nizhniy Novgorod Region 22/08/2013 to 18/01/2014 4 month(s) and 28 day(s)		mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities		2,500
9.	51543/14 03/01/2015	Boris Viktorovich Ishchenko 25/02/1991		IK-2 Novosibirsk 19/06/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)	400 inmate(s) 0.1 m² 4 toilet(s)	mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or insufficient quantity of food		11,800
10.	51955/14 25/06/2014	Vladimir Leonidovich Kichigin 08/07/1952		Ik-56 Ivdel Sverdlovsk Region 21/03/2010 pending More than 7 year(s) and 10 day(s)		cell for two inmates instead of dormitory, not allowed to move freely around the premises of the facility, no lavatory pan or running water - no centralized water-supply or sewage systems, provided with a bucket of water for daily needs: for drinking, washing himself and cleaning the bucket which was used as a lavatory, the water was obtained from the local river and was not clean, in the morning the bucket was emptied into a cesspool outside the building behind the walls of the recreation yards, the bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell and an unpleasant odour lingered in the cell, extremely cold in winter, no ventilation - stuffy and damp cell, lack of natural light, poor food quality, daily walk of 1.5 hours in a yard of 6-9 sq.m., weekly bathing for 15 min. for two inmates in a room of 9 sq.m. with a small basin to pour water		13,500

 

 




---

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