European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF ANTONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 3459/13 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 Antonov 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. 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, §§ 139-65, 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. 3459/13, 15270/13 and 17899/13, 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 v. Russia (no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia).

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 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.

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 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	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.	3459/13 22/10/2012	Eduard Pavlovich Antonov 03/10/1970	IK-11 Bor Nizhniy Novgorod Region 29/09/2008 to 14/06/2012 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 17 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 2.1 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, small walking yard - 73 sq.m. for 260 inmates, six sinks, poor food quality, no warm seasonal clothes and shoes and blanket, no hot water, cold premises, poor condition of bedding and bed linen, weekly shower with 10 shower heads	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
2.	15270/13 08/02/2013	Aleksandr Alekseyevich Tyrkov 15/04/1971	IK-3 Kharp Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 10/06/2011 to 20/11/2012 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s)	1.5 m² 1 toilet(s)	toilet not separated from living area, unpleasant odour, no fresh air and ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, dim electric light, lack of natural light, poor food quality, infestation with lice, cold premises, inmates infected with HIV and tuberculosis	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
3.	17899/13 16/02/2013	Nail Salakhutdinovich Gilaziyev 07/12/1971	IK-2 Shara-Gorokhon Karymskiy Region 13/07/2005 to 19/11/2014 9 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 7 day(s)	120 inmate(s) 1 toilet(s)	overcrowding, one urinal, damp walls covered with black fungus, regular cut-off of hot and cold water, dim electric light, lack of natural light, cement floor, drops of condensed steam fall from the ceiling on the sleeping place, infestation with flies, noise and vibration from the machines, unpleasant smell of sewage permeated the premises, insufficient provision of clothes and shoes	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	10,500
4.	22567/13 04/03/2013	Albert Elziganovich Bakhishev 16/05/1966	IK-13 Nizhniy Tagil 16/04/2012 to 17/09/2012 5 month(s) and 2 day(s)	100 inmate(s) 2 m² 5 toilet(s)	7 sinks, 3 shower heads, living premises adjacent to the cow-house and two garbage collectors - unsanitary conditions and unpleasant odour, no disinfectants provided, infestation with bedbugs, flies rats and mice and other parasites		2,800
5.	24670/13 20/03/2013	Aleksey Vladimirovich Zakharov 26/05/1988	Prison No. 78/ST-2 Dimitrovgrad Ulyanovsk Region 10/03/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s)	1.8 m²	the air heavy with cigarette smoke, no ventilation, poor food quality, walls covered with fungus, squat toilet not separated from living area, no toilet flushing system, dinner table located close to toilet, no hot water, dim electric light on 24/7, infestation with mice, rats, woodlice, cockroaches, ants and other parasites, no disinfection and sanitary measures by the administration, damp and torn bedding and bed linen, matrass with lice, damp floor, inadequate heating - cold cell, no warm seasonal clothes, walks for 30-50 min. are not regular, small and dirty walking yard filled with dust and cigarette ends, weekly shower for 5-10 min. with 3 shower heads for 6 inmates; for five days was not provided with bedding and bed linen and toiletries		17,800

 

 




---

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