European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 33361/16 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 198 (22 February 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/198.html
Cite as: [2018] ECHR 198

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 33361/16 and 6 others -�

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 February 2018

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

In the case of Popov 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 1 February 2018,

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. Some applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (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 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 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 22 February 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra

Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

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	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]
	33361/16 13/07/2016	Artur Viktorovich Popov 02/02/1983	IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 11/07/2013 to 16/05/2017 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.6 m²	overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	7,800
	34396/16 01/06/2016	Aleksey Vladimirovich Pyatnitskiy 29/01/1975	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 01/11/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 10 day(s)	1.6 m²	overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of fresh air		10,000
	38199/16 14/06/2016	Andrey Sergeyevich Bobkov 08/10/1976	IK-5 Kirov Region 28/10/2013 to 27/12/2016 3 year(s) and 2 month(s)		lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	6,800
	38411/16 09/12/2016	Stanislav Vladimirovich Plyukhin 08/09/1973	IK-29 OIK-5 07/11/2011 pending More than 6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 4 day(s)	18 inmate(s) 1.6 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, wooden toilet outside, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of drinking water, inadequate temperature, humidity, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	8,500
	38485/16 22/06/2016	Sergey Ivanovich Chernenko 18/03/1984	IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 06/08/2012 to 08/04/2016 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 3 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.3 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, no facilities to dry clothes, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no warm clothes and blankets, lack of privacy for toilet		5,000
	39313/16 21/06/2016	Stanislav Sergeyevich Shilyayev 27/11/1981	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod region 25/06/2012 to 21/06/2016 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28 day(s)	1.9 m²	overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities		5,000
	39443/16 24/06/2016	Vladimir Valeryevich Ilurov 08/09/1975	IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 11/01/2013 to 05/05/2016 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.3 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of service room, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet		5,000

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