European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SHIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 9428/17 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 295 (29 March 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/295.html
Cite as: [2018] ECHR 295, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD000942817, CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD000942817

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SHIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 9428/17 and 7 others -�

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 March 2018

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

In the case of Shimokhin 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 8 March 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 Article 13 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-�ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given 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, concerning lack of an effective domestic venue to complain about the poor conditions of detention.

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 29 March 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]
	9428/17 20/03/2017	Sergey Aleksandrovich Shimokhin 05/04/1961	IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 21/11/2002 to 12/08/2017 14 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2 m²	overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	6,300
	12107/17 10/04/2017	Aleksey Mikhaylovich Kazantsev 10/04/1981	IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 23/11/2013 to 10/04/2017 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)	1.7 m²	overcrowding, inadequate temperature	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
	12152/17 10/04/2017	Nikolay Vasilyevich Kartsev 01/04/1967	IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 22/02/2014 pending More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)	2 m²	lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, high humidity	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	7,800
	12470/17 23/01/2017	Grigoriy Mikhaylovich Klokov 11/03/1979	IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 06/12/2013 to 03/02/2017 3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)	160 inmate(s) 1.7 m²	overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,300
	14245/17 07/02/2017	Khamid Galimovich Kertbiyev 14/11/1975	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 09/11/2009 pending More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.2 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of warm clothes and shoes		8,300
	28740/17 23/03/2017	Denis Vladimirovich Lavrentyev 13/07/1984	IK-11 Khanty-Mansi Region 03/11/2016 to 18/10/2017 11 month(s) and 16 day(s)	110 inmate(s) 2.2-3 m²	lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell		5,000
	28845/17 05/04/2017	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Korobeynikov 10/04/1983	IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 04/04/2011 to 10/10/2016 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)	2 m²	overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000
	31597/17 19/04/2017	Roman Sergeyevich Kharitonov 02/02/1977	IK-27 Kirov Region 25/01/2010 to 20/10/2016 6 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 26 day(s)	2 m² 5 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,000

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