THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ACHILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 45075/15 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 Achilov 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. In application no. 4215/17 the applicant also raised a complaint 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, §§ 139‑65, 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 and the Government’s objection related to the application of the six-month rule or the incorrect determination of the introductory date for certain cases, 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 dismisses the Government’s objections as unfounded and 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. In application no. 4215/17 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation 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 complaints 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 complaint 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]
45075/15
24/08/2015
Zufar Achilov
29/10/1958
IK-10 Saratov
12/09/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 30 day(s)
80 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
5 toilet(s)
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water
12,300
31553/16
23/05/2016
Mikhail Aleksandrovich Kirichenko
26/08/1977
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
29/12/2006
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 13 day(s)
130 inmate(s)
3 m²
6 toilet(s)
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water
10,000
39854/16
28/06/2016
Dmitriy Sergeyevich Khlebushchev
22/03/1984
IK-29, Sorda, Kirov Region
11/01/2013 to
05/05/2016
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 25 day(s)
6 inmate(s)
2-2.5 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack of time and facilities to teat in the canteen, poor toilet facilities (low temperature, no running water), lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of sport activities
5,000
1931/17
19/12/2016
Roman Aleksandrovich Li
02/01/1966
IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region
18/01/2010
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 24 day(s)
90 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
no or restricted access to potable water
8,300
4215/17
21/12/2016
Sergey Sergeyevich Dzhun
27/05/1987
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region
18/06/2015 to
09/12/2016
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
22 day(s)
6 inmate(s)
2.5 m²
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
9848/17
17/01/2017
Ivan Nikolayevich Mikin
02/10/1963
IK-29 Kirov Region
01/04/2016
pending
More than 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 10 day(s)
6 inmate(s)
2.5 m²
lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
7,500
11144/17
30/01/2017
Aleksandr Alekseyevich Shatalov
30/12/1987
IK-11, Nizhniy Novgorod Region
28/08/2015
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)
2 m²
overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
8,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy