THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BAYKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 9094/05 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baykov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 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 detention during their transport. 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 AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In application no. 9094/05 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). In particular, the declaration did not address all instances of the applicant’s transport during almost four years of his detention, forming a continuous situation. The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. 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.”
8. The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118‑120, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53‑60, 31 July 2008). 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 Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122‑141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
9. In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, 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, including the Government’s objection of six-months raised in respect of application no. 30833/17, 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 objection in application no. 30833/17 and considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention during their transport were inadequate.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding confinement of an applicant in a metal cage during court hearings in a criminal case, and Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, § 50-66, 7 June 2007, related to a violation of applicant’s property rights resulting from the seizure and retention of property and dealing with the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the unlawful restriction on applicant’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In applications nos. 9094/05 and 5867/17 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. 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.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above; Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 2017; and Tomina and Others v. Russia, nos. 20578/08 and 19 others, § 53, 1 December 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
17. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 9094/05 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications nos. 9094/05 and 5867/17 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
6. 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.
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Means of transport
Start and end date
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
9094/05
05/02/2005
Aleksey Alekseyevich Baykov
18/12/1975
Polozova Anna Borisovna
Moscow
van
15/04/2002 to
17/01/2006; numerous occasions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse
0.5 m²
no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, inadequate temperature
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
- retention of the central unit of the applicant’s computer, and other personal belongings, following the search of his apartment in April 2001 in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. On 29/03/2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court ordered the return of the computer to the owner. On 11/11/2004 the judgment became final. The property was only returned to the applicant’s representative on 05/12/2005,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in view of the lack of an effective venue to complain about the seizure and lengthy retention of property
6,000
1,500
5867/17
20/02/2017
Sergey Vladimirovich Ilyin
12/06/1972
train
15/11/2016 to
15/11/2016
0.4 m²
no or restricted access to toilet
1,000
-
19014/17
22/02/2017
Vladimir Borisovich Firsov
08/07/1978
Bagryanskiy Filipp Valeryevich
Vladimir
van, courthouse premises
05/08/2014 to
25/01/2017
0.2 m²
lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - multiple dates, latest hearing took place on 13/09/2016; the applicant being detained in a metal cage during a number of hearings
8,500
750
25738/17
07/03/2017
Ashot Aleksandrovich Andreyev
18/09/1979
train, van, transit cell
01/12/2016 to
01/12/2016
train, van, transit cell
20/12/2016 to
21/12/2016
0.4 m²
0.4 m²
overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of requisite medical assistance
1,000
-
30833/17
07/03/2017
Aleksey Mikhaylovich Yudin
29/08/1980
Bagryanskiy Filipp Valeryevich
Vladimir
van
05/08/2014 to
13/09/2016
0.4 m²
inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant’s stay in a cage during court hearings in the proceedings from 05/08/2014 to 13/09/2016 before the Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic
8,500
750
[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