European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ULEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 40663/18 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 September 2024

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

In the case of Uledev and Others v. Russia,

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

          Branko Lubarda, President,
          Armen Harutyunyan,
          Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 4 July 2024,

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, which were incompatible with their disabilities and that there was no effective remedy in that regard.

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.     Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems, and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

8.  The Court notes that the applicants who suffer from various disabilities, were, kept in detention in poor conditions which did not satisfy their special needs. The details of the applicants' detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78‑81, 10 May 2016, and Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 46‑51, 22 March 2016). It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin, cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004)

9.  In the cases of Topekhin, Butrin and Semikhvostov (all cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  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 conditions of the applicants' detention, exacerbated by their physical impairments, amount to "inhuman and degrading treatment" within the meaning of the Convention.

11.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints (see, among other authorities, Butrin, cited above, §§ 43-45, and Semikhvostov, cited above, §§ 61‑68).

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Butrin, cited above, §§ 72-74, and Semikhvostov, also cited above, §§ 88-90), 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.      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3.      Declares the applications admissible;

4.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the applicants' detention in poor conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection;

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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                             Branko Lubarda
    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

APPENDIX

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

(inadequate conditions of detention of disabled inmates and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)