THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MOKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 49876/16 and 12 others -
see appended list)
This version was rectified on 1 February 2018
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mokin 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 7 December 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 applicants were represented by Mr A. Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma.
3. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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.”
8. 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).
9. 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.
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 were inadequate.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. Some applicants also argued under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about poor detention conditions. The complaints fall under 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, § 45, 28 November 2013.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 78505/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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, 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.
17. 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 complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 78505/16 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. 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);
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 11 January 2018, 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
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]
49876/16
15/08/2016
Roman Valeryevich Mokin
21/11/1976
IK-1 Kostroma
14/08/2008 to
17/06/2016
7 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
4 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
2 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
5,000
52551/16
20/08/2016
Andrey Sergeyevich Potemkin
13/06/1982
IK-1 Kostroma
15/07/2012 to
14/07/2016
4 year(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.7 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
5,000
54118/16
26/08/2016
Aleksey Vitalyevich Suslovskiy
25/09/1981
IK-1 Kostroma
28/11/2007 to
26/07/2016
8 year(s) and
7 month(s) and
29 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.6-2.5 m²
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor conditions of work place
5,000
54239/16
01/09/2016
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Bybyn
21/02/1978
IK-1 Kostroma
25/05/2011 to
09/08/2016
5 year(s) and
2 month(s) and
16 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
5,000
54245/16
03/09/2016
Aleksey Vitalyevich Solodov
13/04/1978
IK-1 Kostroma
11/09/2014 to
25/08/2016
1 year(s) and
11 month(s) and
15 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food
5,000
54598/16
08/09/2016
Igor Valentonovich Alekseyev
04/09/1969
IK-1 Kostroma
08/12/2014 to
03/06/2016
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
27 day(s)
1.5 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food
5,000
57452/16
24/09/2016
Denis Valeryevich Koshkov
20/12/1984
IK-4 Kostroma
11/10/2013 to
09/09/2016
2 year(s) and
10 month(s) and
30 day(s)
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, high humidity, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
75107/16
21/11/2016
Dmitriy Vladimirovich Grustlivyy
11/10/1971
IK-1 Kostroma
05/07/2016
pending
More than
1 year(s) and
4 month(s) and
14 day(s)
120 inmate(s)
1.5-2 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
6,300
78505/16
09/12/2016
Ivan Gennadyevich Konyshev
14/12/1980
IK-1 Kostroma
28/01/2016
pending
More than
1 year(s) and
9 month(s) and
22 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
7,500
79536/16
07/12/2016
Oksana Stepanovna Moskaleva
18/06/1980
IK-8 Kostroma
06/09/2011 to
26/08/2016
4 year(s) and
11 month(s) and
21 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
3 toilet(s)
inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
6161/17
13/12/2016
Sergey Igorevich[2] Speranskiy
07/01/1990
IK-1 Kostroma Region
(ОТ-15/4)
10/02/2014 to
09/11/2016
2 year(s) and
9 month(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.3 m²
overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, high humidity, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, poor quality of potable water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
6252/17
09/01/2017
Andrey Nikolayevich Mikhaylov
21/02/1985
IK-1 Kostroma
31/01/2014 to
29/07/2016
2 year(s) and
5 month(s) and
30 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
6259/17
19/12/2016
Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna Yakovleva
09/02/1980
IK-8 Kostroma
13/12/2007 to
12/12/2016
9 year(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2]. Rectified on 1 February 2018: the text was “Ivanovich”.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy