THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ARISTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36101/11, 36831/11, 52683/12, 63745/12, 59337/13, 67679/13, 67943/13, 77397/13, 3251/14, 9694/14, 13257/14 and 19016/14)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 July 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Aristov 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 30 June 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. 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. 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, §§ 139‑165, 10 January 2012). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “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, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145‑147 and 149).
8. In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54‑64, 12 November 2015, 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. Some 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 Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 100‑119, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia) and Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-149, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pre-trial detention; §§ 154-158 and §§ 161-164 of the same judgment, concerning procedural defects and the lack of speediness in the review of the detention matters, and §§ 103-108 relevant to the conditions of transport of detainees).
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, 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.
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 applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 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 /
Date of registration
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
(in euros)[1]
36101/11
24/05/2011
Denis Gennadyevich ARISTOV
01/09/1980
Marusov Boris Borisovich
St Petersburg
IZ-16/1 Kazan
28/02/2008 to
20/08/2008
5 months and
24 days
IZ-77/5 Moscow
21/08/2008 to
23/10/2009
1 year and
2 months and
3 days
IZ-47/1
St Petersburg
24/10/2009 to
26/09/2011
1 year and
11 months and
3 days
0.7 m²
1.1 m²
1.3 m²
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, sleeping in turns.
Low partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was 1.5 m away from the dining table.
Insects.
Constant cigarette smoke, No ventilation.
Poor quality of food.
Constant electric light.
No individual sleeping place
the applicant is a non-smoker.
Now partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was 1 m away from the dining table.
Insects.
Poor lighting.
Poor quality of food.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
16,600
36831/11
15/10/2012
Arkadiy Arkadyevich KIRSANOV
23/03/1967
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
19/02/2011 to
15/10/2012
1 year and
7 months and
27 days
IZ-30/2 Astrakhan Region
16/10/2012 to
08/01/2013
2 months and
24 days
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
09/01/2013 to
05/02/2013
28 days
2.5 m²
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, sleeping in turns.
Insects, rodents.
Constant cigarette smoke (the applicant is a non-smoker), no ventilation.
No privacy when using lavatory.
No heating in autumn-winter.
Constant cigarette smoke (the applicant is a non-smoker).
The lavatory was close to a dining table.
Poor lighting.
Insects, rodents.
No hot water.
No individual sleeping place.
No individual sleeping place.
Insects, rodents.
Mould.
Constant cigarette smoke (the applicant is a non-smoker), no ventilation.
Inadequate temperature.
No privacy when using lavatory.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
10,400
52683/12
15/07/2012
Aleksandr Gennadyevich VASILYEV
16/10/1982
IZ-50/6 Kolomna Moscow Region
10/02/2012 to
13/04/2012
2 months and
4 days
3 m²
No privacy when using lavatory as there was no partition separating it from the living room.
No ventilation. Stench.
High humidity, mould on the walls and ceiling.
Insects, rats. Poor lighting.
Poor quality of food, no drinking water.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
6,500
63745/12
14/09/2012
Viktor Viktorovich YEMELYANOV
07/06/1968
Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich
Astrakhan
IZ-30/2 Astrakhan Region
06/03/2012 to
31/07/2012
4 months and
26 days
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
01/08/2012 to
15/12/2012
4 months and
15 days
3 m²
2.1 m²
Poor lighting and ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is a non-smoker, infestation in the cells, merely 30 minutes of daily outdoor exercise, low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet was close to the dining table
low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet close the dining table, poor ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is a non-smoker, rotten wooden floor, mould on the ceiling and walls, rodents and insects.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
6,500
59337/13
13/09/2013
Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV
18/02/1981
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
IZ-77/5 Moscow
20/08/2012 to
24/09/2012
1 month and
5 days
IZ-77/7 Moscow
24/09/2012 to
24/04/2013
7 months and
1 day
2.8 m²
3.2 m²
Toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, dining table close to the toilet, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of the cell with insects, constant cigarette smoke
insufficient number of beds in the cell, the applicant slept on the floor, no privacy when using toilet, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (regular) physical exercise outside, lack of regular possibility to wash himself, poor quality of food, constant cigarette smoke
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
6,500
67679/13
07/10/2013
Aleksandr Sergeyevich VILGELM
26/04/1989
Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich
Astrakhan
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
21/12/2012 to
05/11/2014
1 year and
10 months and
16 days
2.2 m²
Lack of fresh air, no drinking water, infestation of the cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
10,100
67943/13
04/10/2013
Denis Mukhtarovich ISKANDAROV
28/09/1987
IZ-47/1
St Petersburg
27/05/2012 to
01/12/2013
1 year and
6 months and
5 days
1.5 m²
No privacy when using lavatory, no ventilation, high humidity, no hot water, poor quality of food
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,800
77397/13
26/07/2013
Danil Lyabibovich GABDULKHAKOV
18/05/1982
Khamzin Ural Irnazarovich
Ufa
IZ-3/1 Ufa
28/06/2013 to
19/08/2014
1 year and
1 month and
23 days
Solitary confinement, no heating, extremely cold in winter, no washstand, squat toilet, poor quality of water, no hot water, poor lighting, mould on the walls, insects, no flush in toilet, stench, no ventilation, poor quality of food, no pillow or blanket, possibility to wash himself once in 10 days, outdoor exercise for 30 minutes allowed not every day
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,500
3251/14
29/11/2013
Sergey Vladimirovich GOLYAKIN
23/12/1979
Shkryuba Roman Vladimirovich
Ivanovo
IZ-37/1 Ivanovo
24/05/2013 to
10/10/2013
4 months and
17 days
1 m²
Overcrowding, no individual sleeping place, sleeping in turns, no privacy when using toilet, stench, insects, rodents
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
6,500
9694/14
18/12/2013
Andrey Leonidovich IVANOV
23/08/1976
IZ-54/1 Novosibirsk
14/05/2009 to
15/03/2010
10 months and
2 days
IZ-54/1 Novosibirsk
15/09/2010 to
15/09/2013
3 years and
1 day
1 m²
1.3 m²
overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of fresh air, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
overcrowding, insufficient number of beds in the cell
13,800
13257/14
30/12/2013
Ilya Vyacheslavovich VASILYEV
10/02/1982
IZ-47/1
St Petersburg
07/02/2012 to
15/04/2015
3 years and
2 months and
9 days
1.3 m²
No partition separating the toilet from the living room, the toilet was 1 metre away from the dining table, no ventilation, low temperature, possibility to take a shower once in 7 or more days
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
15,300
19016/14
14/01/2014
Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN
03/06/1989
Inter-district Psychiatric Hospital IZ-67/1 Smolensk
07/11/2013 to
24/12/2013
1 month and
18 days
2.7 m²
No washstand or toilet in the cell, no drinking water, possibility to wash himself once in 10 days, no outside exercise, poor quality of food
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport
6,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy