CASE OF DEGTYAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF DEGTYAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 19573/21 and 10 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

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

In the case of Degtyarev and Others v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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 detention under strict imprisonment regime. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention and its Protocol.

THE LAW

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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).

7.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.  The general principles regarding the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of deprivation of liberty, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of the Court’s previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-100, 20 October 2016, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

9.  In the leading case of N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020, 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 applicants’ rights were violated as a result of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

12.  The applicant in application no. 19573/21 submitted other complaint which also raised an issue under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (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 Protocol in the light of its findings in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 47-112, 4 July 2013, regarding automatic and indiscriminate ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights.

13.  The applicants further raised the issue of the lack of effective remedies under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their complaints. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicants and that there is no need to examine this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Ionov and Klimenko v. Russia [Committee], nos. 9289/15 33932/17, § 11, 30 March 2023).

14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, N.T., cited above, § 61), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.