European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PASIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 83994/17 and 6 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

9 February 2023

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

In the case of Pasikov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Ioannis Ktistakis,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,

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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 and the insufficiency of the compensation awarded to them by the national courts in that respect.

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 ARTICLES 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They further alleged that the compensation awarded to them by domestic courts under the Compensation Act (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17, §§ 59-64, 17 March 2020) had been inadequate. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122‑41, ECHR 2016, and 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 under Article 3 of the Convention. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. As to the applicants’ victim status, the Court does not lose sight that the domestic courts acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of the Convention, as regards the conditions of their post‑conviction detention. It notes, however, that the redress provided to them at the national level was considerably lower than the amounts awarded in comparable cases by the Court and, therefore, cannot be regarded as sufficient to deprive the applicants of their victim status (compare Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014).

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

11.  In view of the above findings, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the remainder of the applicants’ grievances under Article 13 of the Convention.

III.   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, (just satisfaction), cited above, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, nos. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of the applicants’ detention admissible and decides that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;

4.      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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect)