European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF LOBZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 71066/10 and 8 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 Lobzin 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. 36533/11, 24248/12, 31054/15, 35338/15, 38263/15 and 46820/15, 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.	71066/10 11/11/2010	Aleksey Ivanovich Lobzin 18/05/1963		IK-17 Murmansk 07/10/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s)		The applicant’s sleeping place is 1.2 sq.m, the brigade includes 93 inmates, windows cannot be opened, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, dim electric light on 24/7		21,500
2.	36533/11 30/03/2011	Aleksey Vladimirovich Yeremenko 08/01/1975		Medical correctional colony No. 1 Tomsk 15/07/2005 to 15/02/2007 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)   Medical correctional colony No. 1 Tomsk 15/02/2007 to 07/03/2016 9 year(s) and 22 day(s)	1.5 m²               25 inmates / 12 sq.m. in the whole brigade territory and 7.5 in the sleeping premises / 3 toilets m²	Overcrowding: 10 inmates/1.5 sq.m.             No hot water, inadequate sleeping places, cold cells with draughts, dim electric light on 24/7, inadequate separation of lavatory pans, three sinks, water with pieces of rust and taste of chloride and iron, no disinfectants provided, poor quality of bed linen and bedding. Bedding not changed. One refrigerator and two tables for four persons each, poor food quality, weekly shower for one hour and a half, three shower heads, walls in shower covered with slime, no seasonal shoes for winter.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	20,000
3.	24248/12 10/01/2012	Aleksandr Nikolayevich Milovanov 18/04/1982		IK-11 Bor Nizhniy Novgorod Region 29/03/2010 pending More than 7 year(s) and 2 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 6 toilet(s)	no hot water, cold premises (9 degrees Celsius in winter), poor food quality with 5-7 minutes for eating, no warm winter clothing and shoes, poor condition of bedding and bed linen, weekly shower for 40 minutes, ten shower heads for 40 inmates, unsanitary conditions in shower, 6 sinks, walking yard of 85 sq.m.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	20,800
4.	4607/15 12/05/2015	Aleksey Stanislavovich Kulakov 04/10/1979		IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 19/07/2010 to 13/01/2015 4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 day(s)	135 inmates/ 1.1/6 m²	No hot water, poor food quality, not provided with warm clothes, seasonal shoes and bedding in winter. Six toilets and six sinks.		5,000
5.	14087/15 02/03/2015	Dzhambul Ushangiyevich Kurdadze 21/03/1987	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-7 Kostroma Region 15/09/2006 to 15/04/2015 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 1 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 1 m² 3 toilet(s)	one urinal, three sinks, toilets without flushing system, no hot water, infestation with bedbugs, lice and rats, no ventilation, drinking water contains rust and is of red colour and unpleasant smell, poor food quality		5,500
6.	31054/15 10/06/2015	Sergey Nikolayevich Pomerantsev 27/03/1975	Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar	IK-1 Komi Republic 10/06/2014 to 10/12/2014 6 month(s) and 1 day(s)	1.9 m²	Daily walk for 1.5 hours, no ventilation, dim electric light, lack of natural light, inadequate functioning of the toilet’s flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	3,200
7.	35338/15 16/06/2015	Roman Vladimirovich Khishchenko 12/02/1974	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-4 Ostrovskoe Kostroma Region 20/11/2014 pending More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 11 day(s)		100-120 inmates/less than 2 sq.m. per inmate, Overcrowding, ruinous state of the buildings, walls in cracks, dampness, walls covered with mould, in winter walls are covered with ice, lack of natural light and fresh air, no ventilation, dim electric light, infestation with rats, bedbugs, lice, lack of sanitary cleaning by the administration, inmates infected with HIV and tuberculosis, poor food quality, small walking yard, in absence of drainage system the walking yard is often covered with water, insufficient number of water cranes in shower (4 pairs of hot and cold water cranes), rust-coloured water.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,300
8.	38263/15 18/07/2015	Ivan Vladimirovich Dolmatov 23/03/1988	Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krsanoyarsk	IK-30 Norilsk 01/11/2011 to 18/02/2015 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)	0.9 m²	150 sq.m./130-170 inmates/0.9 sq.m. per inmate, no ventilation or fresh air, dampness. Sleeping place adjacent to the partition between the living area and toilet - the applicant suffered from toilet smell and sound.   Toilet room: 20 sq.m./5 lavatory pans/ 5 sinks, inadequate separation of lavatory pans from each other.   Shower once a week.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
9.	46820/15 26/10/2015	Ruslan Talgatovich Fatykhov 24/12/1977		IK-2 Shara-Gorohon Zabaykalsk Region 21/01/2010 to 27/01/2017 7 year(s) and 7 day(s)	2 m²	no individual sleeping place in the punishment and isolation units, no ventilation, lack of fresh air, malfunction of toilet flushing system leading to unpleasant odour in the dell , lack of natural light and dim electric light, lack of heating in winter, infestation with mice and cockroaches, no disinfectants given, inadequate separation of toilet from living area, no sanitation in shower rooms, 2-3 shower heads for 15-20 min., poor food quality, no warm seasonal clothes, 4 walking yards of 12 sq. m. each with broken cement floor and dirty walls filled with smoke from stroke premises	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,000

 

 




---

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