CASE OF KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KOROSTELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 82352/17 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 March 2025

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

In the case of Korostelev 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 13 February 2025,

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 their detention, in particular in view of their placement in solitary confinement.

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 their detention and, in particular, about their solitary confinement. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.  The Court notes that the applicants were kept in solitary confinement, including in poor material 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 material conditions of detention and solitary confinement (see, for instance, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑65, 10 January 2012; and Razvyazkin v. Russia, no. 13579/09, §§ 90-112, 3 July 2012). It reiterates in particular that solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation is likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities, substantive reasons must be given when a protracted period of solitary confinement is extended (see Razvyazkin, cited above, §§ 101 and 104, and A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 104 and 108, 14 October 2010).

9.  In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, and Razvyazkin, cited above, 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. In the present case, the applicants were held in uninterrupted solitary confinement for extended periods, some of them even for months in isolation. The Court takes note that in addition to social isolation the applicants’ placement in solitary confinement was associated with a number of further restrictions involving, in particular, limited access to outdoor exercise and limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside (see Razvyazkin, cited above, § 102), as well as was accompanied by poor material conditions of detention (see Sergey Babushkin, cited above). Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their detention.

11.  To sum up, these complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

12.  The applicants in application no. 82352/17 further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about solitary confinement. 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 these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

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, nos. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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 6 March 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 after conviction)

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