European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KHLYNTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 9349/18 and 9 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 Khlyntsev 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. 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.     the government’s request to strike out part of application no. 9349/18

6.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged, in respect of application no. 9349/18, that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. IK-9, Volgograd Region, from 6 October 2014 to 20 November 2017, had not complied with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of that complaint. The Government offered to pay the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

7.  The applicant accepted the Government’s proposal.

8.  In the light of the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the parties may be considered to have reached a friendly settlement.

9.  The Court takes note of the friendly settlement agreement. It is satisfied that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of application no. 9349/18 in that part.

10.  It is hence appropriate to strike the case out of the Court’s list in the part covered by the friendly settlement.

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

12.  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).

13.  In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 46‑58, 28 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

14.  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, as described in the appended table below, were inadequate.

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

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

16.  Some applicants submitted other complaints under the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  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.”

18.  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, nos. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), and taking into account the awards made by the Court in the previous cases to the applicants in applications nos. 29520/18 and 44684/18, as well as awards made to some of the applicants by domestic courts, the Court considers it reasonable to make the awards indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike out of its list of cases the part of application no. 9349/18 in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention, insofar as it relates to the conditions of detention in correctional colony no. IK-9, Volgograd Region, from 6 October 2014 to 20 November 2017, and the absence of an effective remedy in this regard;

3.      Declares the complaints about poor conditions of the applicants’ detention, as described in the appended table, admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;

4.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction during the periods indicated in the appended table;

5.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 29520/18, 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 Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)