European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SUCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 6496/14 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 Suchkov 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:

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.  In applications nos. 6496/14, 8185/14, 10447/14, 11990/14, 23057/14 and 30097/14, 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	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.	6496/14 18/12/2013	Aleksandr Borisovich Suchkov 06/09/1963	IK-6 Samara Region 31/12/2004 to 01/11/2013 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)	120 inmate(s) 4 toilet(s)	absence of toilet bowls was particularly bothersome for the applicant suffering from arthritis and osteochondrosis and using walking stick, insects, only one pair of shoes for every two years (both winter and in summertime), tuberculosis, hepatitis and scabies-infected inmates in cell, no individual sleeping place, poor lighting, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
2.	8185/14 11/12/2013	Artem Sergeyevich Ilyushin 18/01/1984	IK-29 Kirov Region 07/07/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)	230 inmate(s) 1.5 m²	tuberculosis-infected inmates in the unit, poor sanitary conditions in toilets (stench and insects and no heating), poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of water, no ventilation	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	15,000
3.	9962/14 09/01/2014	Sergey Petrovich Kucherov 13/09/1968	IK-13 Sverdlovskiy Region 15/07/2005 pending More than 11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s)	187 inmate(s) 1 m² 5 toilet(s)	5 sinks, no hot water, squat toilets		14,800
4.	10447/14 23/12/2013	Aleksey Yuryevich Belov 05/11/1976	IK-30 Perm Region 25/11/2011 to 13/11/2013 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1.5 m² 8 toilet(s)	6 sinks, no ventilation, poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of space for outdoor exercise (60 sq. m.), no hot water	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
5.	11990/14 10/04/2014	Sergey Mikhaylovich Koshelev 09/05/1971	IK-29 Kirov Region 27/01/2009 to 23/04/2014 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)   IK-29 Kirov Region 30/07/2014 to 21/01/2015 5 month(s) and 23 day(s)	1.5 m²           2.4 m²	no ventilation, lack of space for outdoor exercise, no heating in toilet house         no heating in toilet house, lack of space in a dining room	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	6,800
6.	17857/14 19/03/2014	Sergey Valeryevich Pavlov 15/08/1981	IK-5 Kirov Region 03/04/2012 to 23/10/2014 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 21 day(s)	2.5 m²	no ventilation, no hot water, poor quality of water, low temperature, no access to natural light, poor lighting, mould on the walls		7,000
7.	21159/14 03/07/2014	Oleg Olegovich Sitnov 06/05/1984	IK-52/1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 17/10/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 14 day(s)		no ventilation, no individual sleeping place (sleeping on the floor), irregular outdoor exercise, low temperature, poor lighting		13,300
8.	22581/14 01/03/2014	Pavel Leonidovich Golovnev 05/12/1983	IK-1 Tver Region 05/09/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 26 day(s)	1.4 m²	mice and rats, stench, no ventilation		12,800
9.	23057/14 08/01/2014	Igor Anatolyevich Kalashnikov 05/02/1968	IK-29 Kirov Region 20/06/2011 to 04/12/2013 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)	2.5 m²	almost no access to fresh air and natural light, low partition between the toilet and the living space, the toilet was 1 m away from the dining table, no privacy when using toilet, stench	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
10.	30097/14 20/07/2014	Maksim Sergeyevich Zyuzin 27/04/1981	IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 23/01/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)		no partition between the toilet and the living space, no ventilation, poor access to natural light, poor lighting, poor sanitary conditions	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	11,800

 




---

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