THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSANDROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26764/06, 55597/10, 51330/11 and 60876/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aleksandrov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2016,
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. The 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. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 60876/11, a complaint based on the same facts was also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention.
7. The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications.
8. The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. In application no. 60876/11, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table 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 amounts 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 these amounts within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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.
9. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
10. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations.
11. The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties in respect of the complaints pertaining to the conditions of the applicants’ detention.
12. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement 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 the applications insofar as they concern the conditions of the applicants’ detention.
13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the applicants out of the list.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
14. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154‑158, 22 May 2012; Shekhov v. Russia, no. 12440/04, §§ 45-47, 19 June 2014; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 141-144, 17 January 2012; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, 15 December 2005.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15. In applications nos. 26764/06 and 55597/10 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
16. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
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, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
19. 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. Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention insofar as they concern the conditions of the applicants’ detention and Article 13 of the Convention for application no. 60876/11;
3. Declares the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 26764/06 and 55597/10 inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation 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.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
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
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant under Article 39 of the Convention
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant under Article 41 of the Convention
(in euros)[2]
26764/06
02/05/2006
Sergey Yuryevich ALEKSANDROV
09/08/1967
Misakyan Tumas Arsenovich
Moscow
IZ-77/3
28/10/2004 to
14/11/2005
1 year(s) and
18 day(s)
IZ-77/3
17/01/2006 to
06/05/2007
1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and
20 day(s)
lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
insufficient number of sleeping places, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
9,500
2,500
55597/10
23/08/2010
Sergey Leonidovich YELISEYEV
01/09/1963
IZ-66/1 Yekaterinburg
30/12/2004 to
05/05/2012
7 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
6 day(s)
1 m²
Overcrowding.
One shower head for 4 inmates.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
20,000
6,000
51330/11
19/07/2011
Aleksey Olegovich KUDRYAVTSEV
01/04/1981
Nazarov Vladimir Veniaminovich
Vladivostok
IZ-25/1 Vladivostok
18/12/2010 to
16/12/2011
11 month(s) and
29 day(s)
1.3 m²
Not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, cold cell with draughts, inadequate separation of toilet from living area, solitary confinement, weekly shower for 30 minutes, insufficient number of shower heads, daily walk for one hour, walking yard of 18 sq. m. for 19 inmates.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
5,000
2,800
60876/11
23/08/2011
Sherinbeg Abduragimovich MAGAMEDOV
15/09/1976
Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna
St Petersburg
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
06/12/2010 to
04/04/2012
1 year(s) and
3 month(s) and
30 day(s)
1.9 m²
Toilet not separated from living area.
Those using toilet were in the view of the guard observing inmates through a peep-hole in the door. Lack of natural light and fresh air, no ventilation, no sitting places, daily walk for one hour, no hot water, no water from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m, roofed walking yard of 12 sq. m., weekly shower for 15 minutes, insufficient number of shower heads. Transit cells: 0.5 sq. m., no hot drinking water or food during all the day when transported to the court.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention,
6,000
1,800
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy