European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF POLUNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 16342/11 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

6 July 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Polunin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 June 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, as indicated in the appended table, were inadequate.

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

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

11.  In applications nos. 60418/15 and 31026/16 the applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of 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.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In applications nos. 43690/16 and 44721/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention, including about conditions of their detention during the period preceding those indicated in the appended table.

13.  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 (see for similar reasoning, Klyukin v. Russia, no. 54996/07, §§ 43-44, 17 October 2013, with further references).

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014 and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16.  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 complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during the periods indicated in the appended table 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. 43690/16 and 44721/16 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention, as indicated in the appended table;

 

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 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra
Acting Deputy 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.	16342/11 20/04/2011	Sergey Vladimirovich Polunin 13/10/1969		IK-2 Ulan-Ude unit 6 01/07/2009 to 20/04/2011 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 20 day(s)	65 inmate(s) 1.5 m²	lack of or insufficient natural light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food		5,000
2.	60418/15 21/11/2015	Vladislav Vasilyevich Ilyin 25/04/1982		IK-12 Danilovo Arkhangelsk Region 07/12/2005 to 26/01/2010 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)                     IK-1 Arkhangelsk 26/01/2010 to 27/12/2013 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)                 IK-4 Kotlas Arkhangelsk Region 28/12/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)	102 inmate(s) 1.6 m²                             100 inmate(s) 1 m²                       124 inmate(s) 1.9 m² 7 toilet(s)	1 sink for 12 inmates, damp premises with fungus on the walls, no separate premises for drying wet clothes, lack of fresh air and ventilation, toilet in outhouse without heating, no warm seasonal shoes, poor quality of drinking water - unpleasant smell and odour and yellow colour   lack of fresh air and ventilation, damp premises, no water during daytime, toilet in outhouse without heating in 25 m. from living premises, unsanitary conditions in toilet, not provided with warm seasonal shoes, poor food quality   8 sinks, lack of fresh air and ventilation, damp premises with fungus on the walls, educational premises of 16 sq. m. for 120 inmates - 0.1 per inmate, sewing premises lack light and are damp and filled with dust	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,800
3.	31026/16 13/05/2016	Abu Adamovich Atabayev 25/11/1980		IK-5, the Mordoviya Republic 08/11/2013 to 20/11/2015 2 year(s) and 13 day(s)	34 inmate(s) 1.29 m²	overcrowding, insufficient hygiene facilities, infestation of the cell with insects, dormitory infested with rodents, lack of (adequate) heating, inadequate working conditions	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
4.	43690/16 05/07/2016	Maksim Viktorovich Kiselev 18/06/1981		IK-56, the Sverdlovsk Region (УЩ-349/56) 25/01/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 4 day(s)		lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, lack of fresh air, insufficient personal space		7,800
5.	44721/16 11/07/2016	Aleksey Igorevich Taltykin 14/03/1978		IK-11 Bor Nizhniy Novgorod Region 19/06/2014 pending More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 2 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to warm water		7,800
6.	52610/16 20/08/2016	Vladislav Sergeyevich Krasnotsvetov 16/08/1983	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-1 Kostroma Region 21/01/2015 to 05/07/2016 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)	100 inmate(s) 1.5 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air		5,000
7.	52807/16 27/08/2016	Stanislav Viktorovich Ponomarev 12/10/1983	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-1 Kostroma Region 27/02/2015 to 25/04/2016 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 30 day(s)	60 inmate(s) 0.6 m²	overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, high humidity, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food, inadequate working conditions		5,000

 

 




---

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