European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF POLOMKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 59297/09 and 4 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

20 July 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Polomkin 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 29 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. They 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 OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations 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 the examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  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.”

8.  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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016). 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 Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 -141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-159, 10 January 2012).

9.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, 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 case.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and the Government’s argument related to the “continuous” nature of some of the applicants’ detention, 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 (see, for similar assessment, Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 6 others, § 78, 17 January 2012). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

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

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

12.  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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia, [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding the confinement of a defendant in a metal cage during the trial; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, and §§ 154-158, 22 May 2013, regarding conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters; Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49-53, 16 February 2017, concerning absence of an effective opportunity for detainees to attend hearings in their civil cases; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, related to reasons for and length of the pre-trial detention; and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-119, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in Russia.

V.  REMAINING COMPLAINT

13.  In application no. 41524/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

14.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17.  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.  Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;

 

3.  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 application no. 41524/12 inadmissible;

 

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

 

5.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

6.  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;

 

7.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 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	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.	59297/09 28/09/2009	Oleg Vasilyevich Polomkin 23/11/1968		IVS Vyazniki Vladimir Region 15/11/2009 to 05/12/2009 21 day(s)	2.2 m²		Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - 08/06/2009 Promyshlenniy District Court of Samara, 11/08/2009 / Samara Regional Court	1,950
2.	41524/12 05/06/2012	Vitaliy Yevgenyevich Ponomarev 24/03/1969	Yapin Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Bogotol	IZ-11/1 Syktyvkar 19/02/2011 to 19/06/2012 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)                                             IK-22 Severnyy Vorkuta Region 09/06/2012 to 15/08/2015 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 7 day(s)       IZ-11/3 Syktyvkar 21/08/2012 to 11/09/2012 22 day(s)	0.4 m²                                                     2.3 m²	toilet not separated from living area, absence of toilet flushing system allowed unpleasant odour to permeate the cell, no running and drinking water from 10 p.m. till 6 a.m. daily, torn and dirty bed linen, poor condition of bedding, lack of ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, daily walk for 30-40 min., small walking yard, dim electric light, damp cell with the walls covered with fungus, infestation with rats, mice, lice, cockroaches and spiders, poor food quality, weekly shower for 10-15 min. with insufficient volume of hot water           lack of natural light, dim electric light, no ventilation or fresh air, poor food quality, damp cell with water falling down from the ceiling, infestation with cockroaches   solitary confinement, cold cell, infestation with mice, spiders and other parasites, unpleasant odour from toilet permitted the cell	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	15,800
3.	78846/13 06/12/2013	Sergey Aleksandrovich Vishlin 10/04/1991	Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan	IZ-30/1 Astrakhan 03/11/2012 to 28/01/2013 2 month(s) and 26 day(s)                   IZ-30/1 Astrakhan 01/03/2013 to 24/09/2014 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 24 day(s)	2.3 m²                           2.3 m²	poor ventilation, stench, high temperature in the cell in summer time (45-50 degrees Celsius), insects and rodents, poor lighting, low partition between the toilet and the living space, 30-60 minutes of daily outdoor exercise in a yard measuring less 2 sq. m. per inmate       lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrested on 01/11/2012 / convicted on 10/04/2014 / no specific facts cited in detention orders/bail refused / violent crime in group, but stable residence, positive profile, young age,    Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 23 October 2013, appealed on 28 October 2013, examined on appeal on 5 December 2013	10,000
4.	56756/15 29/10/2015	Vadim Aleksandrovich Gasenko 26/06/1977		IZ-47/4 St Petersburg 04/02/2015 to 24/03/2016 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 21 day(s)	1.5 m²	overcrowding, cigarette smoke in cells, lack of (sufficient) natural light, no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, insufficient time for washing himself, small space for outdoor exercise	Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Placement in a metal cage in the courtroom. Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, 11/08/2015-no end date,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van St Petersburg 05/02/2015-no end date 0.3 sq. m. no ventilation, no heating in winter, no hot water for the dry ration Transit cell in IZ-47/4 05/02/2015-no end date 0.7 sq. m. constant cigarette smoke, no ventilation, low temperature in the cell in autumn and winter,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	7,200
5.	25055/16 27/04/2016	Stanislav Aleksandrovich Volobayev 16/03/1991	Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich Astrakhan	IZ-30/1 Astrakhan 25/03/2015 to 17/10/2016 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s)	2.6 m² 1 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of the cell with insects	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - poor stereotyped reasoning for the lengthy pre-trial detention,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - no effective remedy with regard to conditions of detention and extension of pre-trial detention	9,000

 

 




---

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