THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KOLBAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 75645/14 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kolbaya and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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. Some applicants 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.
THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 2512/18 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 2512/18 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 cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
alleged violation of article 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. 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:
Article 3
“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’ transport 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 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).
9. 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.
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’ conditions of detention during their transport were inadequate.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. Some applicants submitted additional complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the conditions of transport; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in the courtroom).
13. In applications nos. 75645/14, 54075/16, 31994/17, 81336/17, 1825/19, 33226/19 and 26231/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
17. 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;Rejects the Government’s request to strike application no. 2512/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;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 applications nos. 75645/14, 54075/16, 31994/17, 81336/17, 1825/19, 33226/19 and 26231/20 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach 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 the 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 13 October 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
Representative’s 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 and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
75645/14
20/10/2014
Aleksandr Dzhoniyevich KOLBAYA
1985
Marina Aleksandrovna Belinskaya
St Petersburg
van
22/09/2014 to
22/09/2014
lack of fresh air, transportation time
4 hours, inadequate temperature, 40 detainees in a van, overcrowding
1,000
54075/16
30/08/2016
Marina Vladimirovna GERASIMOVA
1962
Konstantin Yuryevich Yeliseyev
Samara
van, train
20/02/2016 to
11/06/2016
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, inadequate temperature
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Confinement in a metal cage in the court room of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Samara during the hearings concerning the restraint measure and in a video link room in SIZO during the appeal hearings before the Samara Regional Court (6 occasions between 20/02/ and 24/06/2016).
8,500
31994/17
02/05/2017
Dmitriy Mikhaylovich RYNYAK
1972
Roza Saidovna Magomedova
Moscow
van
03/08/2016 to
22/02/2017
lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order of 22 December 2016 was reviewed by the appeal court 32 days later. The violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was acknowledged by the Government;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.
1,500
81336/17
18/11/2017
Nikolay Vladimirovich KHOVANSKIY
1968
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Yezhov
Velikiy Novgorod
van, transit cell
28/06/2017 to
28/06/2017
van, transit cell
26/09/2017 to
26/09/2017
0.3-1 m²
0.3-1 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food
inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Detention hearings in the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow, 28/06/2017, 26/09/2017,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.
8,500
2512/18
14/12/2017
Vladimir Grigoryevich MALYARCHUK
1966
van, transit cell, between SIZO-1 and/or SIZO-4 and the temporary detention facility in St Petersburg and St Petersburg City Court
19/03/2015 to
27/07/2017
overcrowding
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement of the applicant in a metal cage in the courthouse during the extension of his detention, with the most recent hearing on 27/07/2017.
8,500
1825/19
21/12/2018
Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV
1968
Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva
Moscow
transit cell, van
10/06/2016 to
31/07/2018
0,2-
0,3 m²
applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, constant electric light
1,000
33226/19
05/06/2019
Svetlana Zhambulatovna CHEREPOVSKAYA
1984
Nellya Arturovna
Pokrov Shishova
van
29/01/2019 to
15/02/2019
1,000
26231/20
28/03/2020
Aleksey Sergeyevich KOROVIN
1983
van
06/11/2017 to 04/02/2020
0.3 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport.
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.