THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GROMOV AND BARBOLIN v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 1354/19 and 29725/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gromov and Barbolin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
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 during their transport. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. 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.”
7. 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, §§ 118‑20, 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, §§ 122‑41, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
8. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, 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 during their transport were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The 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 Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 120-50, 23 March 2016, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 49-101, 8 January 2013, as regards medical negligence in prison and lack of effective remedies in this respect (see appended table for further description); and Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 143-56, concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about poor conditions of transport.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. The applicant in application no. 29725/19 further complained about material conditions of detention after conviction. 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 applicant 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).
13. The applicant in application no. 1354/19 also raised additional complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the application 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 application no. 1354/19 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. The Court further 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,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning inadequate conditions of detention during transport and other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints about conditions of detention after conviction in application no. 29725/19, and dismisses the remaining complaints in application no. 1354/19 as inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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’s name
Year of birth
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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
1354/19
30/11/2018
Artur Ivanovich GROMOV
1989
van, train
19/07/2018 to
07/08/2018
0.3
Inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet
Art. 3 - inadequate medical treatment in detention - Lack of testing and treatment of hepatitis C;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
16,000
29725/19
07/05/2019
Andrey Anatolyevich BARBOLIN
1986
transit cell, van
13/02/2019 to
20/03/2019
0.4-0.5
Lack of fresh air, overcrowding
Art. 3 - inadequate medical treatment in detention - Heart condition, lack of examination and treatment;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate medical treatment in detention;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
16,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.