European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF MANUYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 63346/13 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 Manuylov 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, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia) and Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, concerning the conditions of transport of detainees).

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	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.	63346/13 04/09/2013	Valeriy Vladislavovich Manuylov 01/01/1959	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 05/05/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)	147 inmate(s) 1.7 m²	lack of requisite medical assistance, overcrowding	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	15,800
2.	63990/13 07/07/2011	Aleksey Sergeyevich Dzhumagaliyev 26/07/1977	Prison hospital no. LIU-2 Omsk Region 07/07/2011 pending More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)	1.5 m²	overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	19,300
3.	64053/13 19/09/2013	Andrey Anatolyevich Novoselov 07/06/1970	IK-30 Perm Region 15/02/2012 to 19/09/2013 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 5 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s)	no hot water, insufficient space for outdoor exercise, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
4.	65405/13 20/09/2013	Andrey Sergeyevich Sidorov 24/09/1980	IK-12 Arkhangelsk Region 07/02/2001 to 10/10/2002 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)   IK-4 Arkhangelsk Region 10/10/2002 to 20/08/2005 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 11 day(s)   Prison Hospital FKU OB Arkhangelsk Region 21/01/2005 to 15/04/2013 8 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)   IK-12 Arkhangelsk Region 20/08/2005 pending More than 11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 11 day(s)     IK-28 Arkhangelsk Region 24/04/2015 to 11/09/2015 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)	145 inmate(s) 1.7 m²         145 inmate(s) 1.7 m²         2 m²             145 inmate(s) 1.7 m²           1.9 m²	click and type text, insufficient number of beds in the cell, poor quality of water, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating   toilet pans are not separated, insufficient number of beds in the cell, poor quality of water, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating   poor sanitary conditions, lack of (adequate) heating           toilet pans are not separated, insufficient number of beds in the cell, poor quality of water, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating     toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of water	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	16,800
5.	72742/13 23/10/2013	Yevgeniy Valeryevich Matveyev 03/10/1976	IK-29 Perm 29/04/2013 to 08/05/2013 10 day(s)             IK-2 Perm Region 09/05/2013 to 15/05/2013 7 day(s)         IK-19 Perm Region 15/05/2013 to 02/12/2013 6 month(s) and 18 day(s)       IK-2 Perm Region 26/08/2013 to 29/08/2013 4 day(s)       IK-9 Perm Region 02/12/2013 to 25/12/2013 24 day(s)	2.5 m²                   2.2 m²               150 inmate(s) 8 toilet(s)           1.2 m²             1.7 m²	no access to natural light, low partition between the toilet and the living room, the squat toilet was 0.5 m away from the dining table, insects and rodents, outdoor exercise allowed only once         fewer sleeping places than inmates, poor ventilation, poor lighting, low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet was one metre away from the dining table, poor quality of food, outdoor exercise allowed only once   insects and rodents, no ventilation, poor lighting, poor heating, no hot water, lack of space for outdoor exercise, poor quality of food, outdoor exercise allowed only once, lack of requisite medical assistance   fewer sleeping places than inmates, poor ventilation, poor lighting, low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet was 0.5 metre away from the dining table, poor quality of food   overcrowding, poor lighting, no access to natural light, no ventilation, poor quality of food, no hot water, insects.	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Van, Perm 29/04/2013 0.63 sq. m., trip of 40-50 minutes, no lighting, no ventilation, no heating Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,100
6.	75470/13 05/11/2013	Aleksandr Viktorovich Medvedev 24/03/1978	IK-2 Tomsk Region 20/12/2013 to 25/02/2014 2 month(s) and 6 day(s)	2.5 m²	lack of (adequate) heating, lack of (sufficient) natural light, mould on the walls, insects, rodents, stench,, poor quality of food, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, 3-5 minutes to take weekly shower	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	1,700
7.	77073/13 21/10/2013	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kashentsev 07/02/1982	IK-6 Kirov Region 02/04/2009 to 28/05/2013 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)	1 m²	no ventilation, low partition between the toilet and the living area, no access to natural light or fresh air, tuberculosis and hepatitis-infected inmates in the dormitory, poor quality of food	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.