European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KOSHELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Applications nos. 29647/16 and 6 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

12 October 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Koshelev 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 21 September 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.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under the 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 v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013.

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 of Article 13 of the Convention 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 12 October 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.	29647/16 18/07/2016	Sergey Mikhaylovich Koshelev 09/05/1971		IK-29 Kirov region 26/06/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 29 day(s)		overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, lack or inadequate furniture	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	8,300
2.	41520/16 15/08/2016	Denis Mukhtarovich Iskandarov 28/09/1987		IK-6 Pskov 10/06/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 15 day(s)	1.5 m²	overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, passive smoking	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	8,000
3.	48000/16 02/08/2016	Sergey Alekseyevich Grigoryev 28/11/1971		IK-1 Arkhangelsk 21/06/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 4 day(s)	190 inmate(s) 1.7 m²	overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water		8,000
4.	48005/16 25/07/2016	Oleg Leonovich Artyukhov 25/07/1964		IK-1 Arkhangelsk 28/08/2012 to 24/12/2016 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 27 day(s)	190 inmate(s) 1.7 m²	overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance		6,300
5.	52755/16 27/08/2016	Igor Yuryevich Kochetov 07/07/1968	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-1 Kostroma 10/05/2011 pending More than 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 15 day(s)	130 inmate(s) 2 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, infestation of cell with insects/rodents		7,800
6.	52816/16 29/08/2016	Roman Alekseyevich Denisov 12/09/1982		IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region 18/04/2011 pending More than 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 7 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.3 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities		7,800
7.	54236/16 19/08/2016	Anastasiya Olegovna Novikova 29/11/1989		IK-3 Kostromskiy Region 21/11/2013 pending More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)		sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	8,000

 

 




---

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