THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 34655/08 and 6 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 February 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Galiyev 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 Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 26 January 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. 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, cited above, 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 (cases nos. 34655/08, 60673/09, 37163/11, 69630/11, 71326/11) 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), Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-149, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention), Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no. 5829/04, §§ 203-248, 31 May 2011), Lebedev v Russia (no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007, regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters) and Nakhmanovich v. Russia (no. 55669/00, §§ 95-98, 2 March 2006, regarding the excessive length of criminal proceedings).
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, cited above, and Butko, cited above, § 68), 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 16 February 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidHelena Jäderblom
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
(in euros)[1]
34655/08
22/05/2008
Ilshat Samatovich GALIYEV
18/12/1972
Detention facility at the police department in Naberezhnye Chelny
16/10/2001 to
18/10/2001
3 day(s)
IVS Naberezhnye Chelny
18/10/2001 to
12/11/2001
26 day(s)
IZ-16/3 Bugulma
12/11/2001 to
24/07/2004
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 13 day(s)
IZ-16/1 Kazan
25/07/2004 to
08/09/2007
3 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 15 day(s)
IZ-77/1 Moscow
09/09/2007 to
10/02/2008
5 month(s) and 2 day(s)
IZ-52/1 Nizhny Novgorod
07/02/2008 to
14/04/2008
2 month(s) and 8 day(s)
6 m²
1.05 m²
1.4 m²
1.25 m²
2.2 m²
8.7 m²
No ventilation or fresh air. No natural or electric light. No toilet or hand-wash basin. Cement floor No food provided. No bed linen or bedding provided.
The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system, which allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. No natural light. Dim electric light. No ventilation or fresh air. Infestation with mice, cockroaches, spiders and bedbugs. No walks. No bedclothes, bedding, tableware or toiletries provided. Cement floor. No shower. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment provided. The air heavy with cigarette smoke.
The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. Lack of natural light. Dim electric light on 24/7. Infestation with rats, cockroaches, lice and bedbugs. Cement floor. Cold cells. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system, which allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Dinner table close to toilet. Poor food quality. No bedding, bed linen, tableware or toiletries. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment provided. Regular walks for one hour. Shower once in 10 days for 5 minutes. Dirty shower with walls covered with slime.
The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates. Infestation with mice, cockroaches, lice and bedbugs. Dim electric light. Lack of natural light. No ventilation or fresh air. Walk once a day for one hour. Shower once in 10 days. Shower walls covered with slime. Shower and walks with inmates infected with tuberculosis and other contagious diseases. No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Absence of a sink in the cell entailed the necessity to wash tableware over toilet. Cells without a dinner table or with one located close to toilet. Torn and dirty bedding. Bed linen not provided. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment or toiletries provided. Cement floor. Cold cells. The air heavy with cigarette smoke. Solitary confinement.
Infestation with rats and bedbugs. Inadequate separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Dinner table close to toilet. Torn and dirty bedding and bed linen. Poor food quality. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment, toiletries provided.
No separation of toilet from living area. Toilet without flushing system allowed unpleasant odours to permeate the cell. Infestation with bedbugs. No bedclothes provided. Walks once a day per one hour. No cleaning liquid or other sanitary equipment, toiletries provided.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings -
25,000
60673/09
04/11/2009
Konstantin Borisovich ZVEREV
12/03/1967
IZ-47/4 St Petersburg
17/04/2008 to
18/07/2011
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1.9 m²
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention -
15,600
37163/11
15/04/2011
Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAGORODNIY
21/11/1972
Mudarisov Rif Minetdinovich
Nefteyugansk
IVS Nefteyugansk
24/08/2010 to
06/12/2011
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s)
1.1 m²
overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
7,800
37854/11
11/05/2011
German Viktorovich TITOV
20/11/1964
IZ-66/3 Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region
03/09/2010 to
18/11/2011
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s)
2 m²
Constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is non-smoker.
Poor quality of food.
5,800
69630/11
21/09/2011
Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAYKOV
21/11/1972
IZ-74/3, IZ-74/1 Chelyabinsk
09/09/2009
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)
Medical facility LIU-3 Chelyabinsk
22/03/2011 to
29/06/2011
3 month(s) and 8 day(s)
1.2 m²
1 m²
No privacy when using lavatory. Insects. No access to natural light. No ventilation; constant cigarette smoke and the applicant is a non-smoker. Poor quality of food. Possibility to wash himself once in 10-15 days.
1 sink and 1 pan for 100-120 inmates.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
21,300
71326/11
01/11/2011
Vladimir Borisovich NIKULSHIN
14/09/1971
Menshikov Aleksey
Rostov-na-Donu
IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don
19/05/2008 to
05/09/2010
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don
13/11/2010 to
20/11/2010
8 day(s)
IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don
04/12/2010 to
15/07/2011
7 month(s) and 12 day(s)
0.5 m²
1.3 m²
1 m²
lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention -
14,300
66935/13
25/09/2013
Vasiliy Ivanovich SAVINOV
17/06/1972
IZ-21/2 Cheboksary Chuvashia
16/10/2011 to
26/04/2013
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)
1.98 m²
Passive smoking. Limited access to natural light and fresh air. The cell had one window which was covered with metal bar. Walls covered with mould, dirty. Cell infected with bed-bugs, lice and mice. Facility administration did not provide inmates with cleaning products. Lavatory pan just one metre away from the table, separated from the living area by a partition less than 0.8 meter-high. Food very scarce and of poor quality.
6,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy