European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KAZAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 4649/08 and 7 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 Kazakov 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.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE APPLICATIONS OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations in some of the applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of their merits (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).”

III.  THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION No. 4649/08

7.  The applicant, Mr Kazakov, (application no. 4649/08) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s wife, Ms Ivanova, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request.

8.  The Court considers that the applicant’s wife has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of her husband’s right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention (see Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006, and Livada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 21262/06, §§ 34-35, 26 June 2014).

9.  Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Ivanova has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 4649/08 on behalf of her late husband.

IV.  THE INTRODUCTION DATE FOR CASES Nos. 36240/08 AND 54313/11

10.  The Government submitted that the Court’s Registry determined incorrectly the introduction dates for applications nos. 36240/08 and 54313/11.

11.  The Court reiterates that the date of the introduction of an application is generally considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application (see, for example, Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, §§ 17 and 19, 1 June 2010, and Zverev v. Russia (dec.), no. 16234/05, § 12, 3 July 2012).

12.  The Court notes that in application no. 36240/08 the first letter of 12 June 2008 did not mention, even implicitly, the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention. Such complaint was first lodged with the Court on 6 January 2009.

13.  Having regard to the above considerations the Court finds that this date, namely 6 January 2009, should be considered as the date of the introduction of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention for application no. 36240/08.

14.  With respect to application no. 54313/11, the Court observes that on 8 August 2011 the applicant, Mr Kazydub, sent his first letter, expressing intent to lodge an application. He was then asked to submit a properly completed application form by 24 October 2011. On 20 March 2012 the Court received the application form dated 19 February 2012.

15.  Regard being had to the Practice Direction on the Institution of Proceedings, appended to Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court and issued by the President of the Court in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Court on 1 November 2003 amended on 22 September 2008 and on 24 June 2009, as in force on the date of the introduction of the first letter, the Court considers that due to Mr Kazydub’s failure to comply with the Registry’s instructions, the date of 19 February 2012, when he dispatched the application form, should be taken as the introduction date for case no. 54313/11.

V.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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.”

17.  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).

18.  The Court further reiterates its consistent stance to treat as a “continuing situation” several different periods of an applicant’s detention where the nature of the applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention remained substantially the same. In the event of a repetition of the same events, such as an applicant’s placement in convoy cells during transport, even though the applicant was detained there on specific days rather than continuously, the absence of any marked variation in the conditions to which he had been routinely subjected also created, in the Court’s view, a “continuing situation” which brought the entire period complained of within the Court’s competence (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 75-78, with further references). In this respect, the Court finds that the applicants’ detention in cases nos. 36240/08, 16078/10 and 54313/11, as described in the appended table, constituted a “continuing situation”.

19.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others, cited above, 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 cases.

20.  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.

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

VI.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

22.  In applications nos. 4649/08, 36240/08, 16078/10 and 59251/14 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 154-58, 22 May 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Ananyev and Others, cited above.

VII.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

23.  In applications nos. 4649/08, 4315/09 and 54313/11 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

24.  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.

VIII.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

25.  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.”

26.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others, cited above, and Butko, cited above, § 68), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

27.  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.  Decides that the wife of the applicant (application no. 4649/08), Ms Ivanova, has locus standi in the proceedings;

 

3.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike some of the applications out of the list;

 

4.  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. 4649/08, 4315/09 and 54313/11 inadmissible;

 

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

 

6.  Holds that there has been a violation 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 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	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.	4649/08 12/11/2007	Vladimir Aleksandrovich KAZAKOV 06/08/1955	Dmitriy Vladimirovich AGRANOVSKIY Elektrostal	IZ 47/1 St Petersburg 09/02/2007 to 12/04/2010 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)	2.1 m²	Lack of privacy for toilet, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease.	Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 09/02/2007-12/04/2010,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 06/02/2007-12/04/2010,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Delayed examination of appeals against the extension of detention orders	15,300
2.	36240/08 12/06/2008	Vladimir Sergeyevich KIRMISHOV 20/11/1960		IZ-32/1 Bryansk 05/01/2007 to 05/09/2008 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 1 day(s)	2.3 m²	No ventilation, no fresh air, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, no heating, prescribed diet food not provided, leaking roof - water falling from the ceiling on the inmates.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	7,300
3.	4315/09 22/04/2009	Andrey Valentinovich ZOLOTAREV 21/03/1961		IZ-61/1 Rostov-na-Donu cell 4 24/01/2008 to 22/11/2008 9 month(s) and 30 day(s)	0.75 m²	Lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no ventilation, no toilet partition, infestation of cell with insects/ rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places.		4,300
4.	16078/10 18/02/2010	Vyacheslav Anatolyevich VERBITSKIY 12/11/1974		IVS Volzhskiy, the Volgograd Region 20/11/2008 to 06/11/2009 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)	2 m²	Overcrowding, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
5.	54313/11 19/02/2012	Yevgeniy Vasilyevich KAZYDUB 11/03/1975		Convoy cell in the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 16/05/2011 to 22/11/2011 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)	1 m²	Benches nailed to the walls, covered with lumps of plaster, which created impossibility to sit, lack of ventilation, no fresh air, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, no boiling water for brewing concentrated products, dim electric light.		3,200
6.	59251/14 06/08/2014	Maksim Valeryevich KUZNETSOV 23/05/1975		IZ-16/1 Kazan 26/10/2010 to 24/05/2014 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s)	2.1 m²	Inadequate separation of toilet from living area. no individual sleeping place; lack of natural light, dim electric light, inadequate quality of bedding, cold cells, radio loudspeakers on daily from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m., inadequate quality of food, no walks for more than 60 days, weekly shower for 15 minutes, shower sprinklers not separated into stalls.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	12,800
7.	3949/15 16/03/2015	Timur Kamoldzhonovich VEYKIN 14/04/1994		Police Station of the Moscow District of St Petersburg 09/12/2014 to 10/12/2014 2 day(s) IVS Moscow District of St Petersburg 10/12/2014 to 12/12/2014 3 day(s)   IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 12/12/2014 to 16/03/2015 3 month(s) and 5 day(s)	2.6 m²	No window, no lavatory, no food, no outdoor exercises, cell unfit for sleeping.         No outside exercise. Received food twice.             Low partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was near the dining table, no benches for sitting, window did not prevent cold air from getting into the cell, low temperature, no TV or fridge, thin mattress, humidity, poor quality of water, insects.		2,100
8.	1672/16 23/12/2015	Sergey Veniaminovich KUZNETSOV 24/04/1962		IZ 22/1 Barnaul 26/02/2014 to 26/06/2015 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)	1.7-2 m²	Lack of (sufficient) natural light, infestation of the cell with insects, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of food, shower once a week, 15-20 minutes.		6,300

 

 




---

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