THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DUBININ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 37783/16 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 October 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dubinin 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 21 September 2017,
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. 37783/16, 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, §§ 139‑165, 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, 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. In application no. 37783/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, in accordance with 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 Convention in the light of its findings in Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 38-45, 28 November 2013.
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 applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that, in application no. 37783/16, there has been a violation of Article 13 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 12 October 2017, 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
Number of 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]
37783/16
11/11/2016
Valeriy Viktorovich Dubinin
08/04/1979
IK-36 Krasnoyarskiy Krai
11/11/2014 to
18/04/2017
2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and
8 day(s)
2.5 m²
Overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
6,500
46834/16
20/07/2016
Vyacheslav Yevgenyevich Smirnov
02/09/1971
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
27/05/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
3 month(s) and 3 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
6 toilet(s)
Overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food.
8,500
48299/16
18/06/2016
Andrey Vladimirovich Klimin
13/08/1978
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
19/04/2010
pending
More than 7 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 11 day(s)
129 inmate(s)
2 m²
6 toilet(s)
Overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities.
8,800
50497/16
29/07/2016
Mikhail Mikhaylovich Gagarin
17/03/1988
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
15/11/2012
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 15 day(s)
38 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food.
8,500
50828/16
10/08/2016
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Nefedov
19/06/1983
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
29/12/2014
pending
More than 2 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 1 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
6 toilet(s)
8,300
50946/16
17/08/2016
Roman Nikolayevich Lebedev
08/07/1981
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
20/08/2012 to
19/09/2016
4 year(s) and 1 month(s)
130 inmate(s)
3 m²
6 toilet(s)
Inadequate temperature, overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities.
5,500
52555/16
22/08/2016
Aleksandr Ivanovich Avdeyev
10/06/1963
IK-11, Bor, Nizhniy Novgorod Region
20/02/2012 to
29/11/2016
4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and
10 day(s)
38 inmate(s)
1,8 m²
8 toilet(s)
Lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of privacy in the shower, poor quality of food, insufficient and not season-related providing of shoes and clothes, early reveille (5 am), overcrowding.
6,000
52563/16
19/08/2016
Sergey Nikolayevich Vologin
27/07/1967
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
04/03/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 26 day(s)
58 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
Overcrowding.
8,300
66925/16
25/10/2016
Anatoliy Gusmanovich Gismatulin
05/06/1966
IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region
01/06/2015
pending
More than 2 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 29 day(s)
90 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water.
7,800
69653/16
01/11/2016
Boris Valentinovich Voronkov
22/07/1962
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy Region
13/09/2012
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
11 month(s) and
17 day(s)
130 inmate(s)
2 m²
Overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance.
7,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy