THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MULYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 31044/08 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 October 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mulyukov 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 21 September 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. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in some applications 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 case (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 cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. 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. In application no. 10669/09 the Government argued that the complaint was inadmissible with reference to the date of dispatch indicated by the stamp on the envelope (6 June 2009). The Court notes in this connection that during the relevant time the applicant was held in detention and could only dispatch his letters through the relevant prison authority. It is clear from the case-file that the application form bears the date of 18 April 2009, which is well within the six month time-limit. In such circumstances and given the lack of indication that the delay in dispatch was attributable to the applicant, the Court rejects the Government argument.
9. 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). 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 Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 ‑141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
10. In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
11. 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.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
13. Some applicants 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 Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 203‑48, 31 May 2011, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-119, 10 January 2012 and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 139-149, 22 May 2012.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. In application no. 36851/13 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
15. 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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 172, 10 January 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
18. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some applications out of its list of cases;
3. 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. 36851/13 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
5. 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);
6. 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 12 October 2017, 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
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Domestic award (in euros)
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant (in euros)[1]
31044/08
02/06/2008
Rustem Masgutovich Mulyukov
26/10/1977
IZ-3/1 Ufa Republic of Bashkortostan
12/08/2008 to
06/10/2011
3 years and
1 month and
25 days
0.3 m²
no individual sleeping place, dim electric light, no ventilation or natural light, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, walks for less than an hour, toilet not separated from living area, poor food quality
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - lack of relevant reasons ,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15,000
10669/09
28/01/2009
Stefan Yevlogiyevich Paunskiy
14/06/1975
IZ-77/5 Moscow
01/10/2007 to
06/09/2008
11 months and
6 days
2.5 m²
overcrowding – 19 inmates in a cell for 10, not provided with an individual sleeping place, day-light lamp on 24/7, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, no ventilation, poor food quality
5,000
62849/10
06/10/2010
Eduard Nikolayevich Tsvetkov
08/01/1977
IZ-11/2 Sosnogorsk
04/12/2009 to
15/04/2010
4 months and
12 days
Prison hospital LIU‑3 Rakpas Komi Republic
15/07/2010 to
08/09/2010
1 month and
25 days
1.9 m²
60 inmates
2 m²
1 toilet
overcrowding, no natural light or fresh air, no ventilation, toilet not separated from living area, toilet in view of male and female guards observing the cell through the peephole in the door, infestation with rodents, very cold in winter due to lack of heating, daily walk for one hour, poor quality of drinking water
5 sinks, no fresh air or ventilation, no walks, shower only once during the first two weeks, infestation with rats, poor drinking water
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - applicant transported in a van on a number of occasions throughout the criminal proceedings against him, poor conditions of transport and detention in a transit cell,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – period from 08/09/2010 to 01/06/2014
17,200
63203/11
05/08/2011
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Zlokazov
10/09/1971
IZ-66/1 Yekaterinburg
30/12/2004 to
05/05/2012
7 years and
4 months and
6 days
0.8 m²
no individual sleeping place, cold and damp cells with cement floor, no ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, electric light on 24/7, lack of separation of toilet from living area with no lavatory pan but a hole instead, regular flow of sewage from toilet to the cell floor, dinner table close to toilet, daily walk for one hour except for the shower days, walking yard of 12-32 sq.m., infestation with bedbugs, no hot water in cells, shower once in ten days with 3-8 shower heads
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in extremely poor conditions in a prison van on numerous occasions and the subsequent detention in a transit cell during the pre-trial investigation and trial (period after arrest and until 4/07/2011),
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrest on 29 December 2004; conviction on 4/07/2011,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
19,500
3076/13
18/12/2012
Stanislav Aleksandrovich Shmatko
22/04/1993
Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich
Astrakhan
IZ-30/2 Narimanov Astrakhan Region
25/05/2012 to
01/08/2012
2 months and
8 days
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
01/08/2012 to
13/02/2013
6 months and
13 days
2 m²
1.9 m²
no ventilation, hot in summer, infestation, inadequate separation of toilet, those using toilet were in view of the guard observing the cell through the peephole in the door, dim electric light on 24/7, lack of natural light and fresh air, no cleaning or sanitary measures by administration, daily walk for 30 min., small walking yard of 15 sq.m., weekly shower for 10-15 min., four shower heads, repeated non‑functioning of shower for several weeks
no ventilation, hot in summer, infestation, lack of separation of toilet from living area, dim electric light on 24/7, lack of natural light and fresh air, no cleaning or sanitary measures by administration, daily walk for 30-60 min., small walking yard of 15 sq.m., weekly shower for 10-15 min., repeated non-functioning of shower for several weeks, ten shower heads
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport by prison van and transit detention during the pre-trial investigation and trial,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrested on 21 May 2012; convicted on 6 December 2012,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the appeal against the detention order of 10 October 2012 was examined on 22 November 2012
6,500
36851/13
20/05/2013
Sergey Vladislavovich Sapozhnikov
07/11/1981
IZ-67/1 Smolensk
24/11/2012 to
16/03/2013
3 months and
21 days
IZ-52/1 Nizhniy Novgorod
19/03/2013 to
25/03/2013
7 days
IZ-52/1 Nizhniy Novgorod
15/04/2013 to
13/05/2013
29 days
0.4 m²
1.8 m²
1.8 m²
no individual sleeping place, infestation, damp cells, dim electric light on 24/7, lack of natural light and of fresh air and ventilation, hot in summer and cold in winter, poor food quality, inadequate separation of squat toilet from living area, no sanitation of the cells, no hot water, shower once in ten days for 15‑20 minutes, insufficient number of shower heads, walking yard too small, daily walk for 30-50 min.
no individual sleeping place, infestation, damp cells, light on 24/7, lack of natural light, hot in summer and cold in winter, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, poor food quality, insufficient number of shower heads
no or restricted access to shower, constant electric light, passive smoking, poor quality of food
123
judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk of 06.02.2013, as upheld on appeal on 21.05.2013 by the Smolensk Regional Court
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport and detention in transit cells and courthouse during pre-trial investigation and trial 2011-2013,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
6,500
16903/14
03/02/2014
Andrey Alekseyevich Agarkov
25/06/1973
IZ-61/1 Pskov
30/08/2013 to
16/11/2013
2 months and
18 days
1.7 m²
poor food quality, dim light, no hot water, unsanitary conditions in the cell, infestation with fleas, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, lack of ventilation, no fresh air, shower for 10 min., insufficient number of shower heads
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport by train in November 2013
6,500
64207/14
19/09/2014
Vladimir Vladimirovich Sobolev
09/07/1989
Budkevich Tatyana Georgiyevna
Pervouralsk
IZ-66/1 Yekaterinburg Sverdlovsk Region
30/05/2012 to
07/05/2014
1 year and
11 months and
8 days
1.9 m²
overcrowding, not provided with an individual sleeping place and had to share one with inmates, no ventilation, the air heavy with cigarette smoke, lack of natural light, infestation with insects and rodents, electric light on 24/7, walks for 30-40 min., poor food quality
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,000
16117/16
03/08/2016
Illarion Vasilyevich Polesskiy
24/09/1970
IZ-1 St Petersburg
30/03/2014
pending
More than 3 years and 4 months and
26 days
4 inmates
1.9 m²
1 toilet
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack or inadequate furniture
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15,900
55353/16
14/09/2016
Aleksey Valentinovich Oreshkov
19/02/1981
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
IZ-1 St Petersburg
25/03/2016
pending
More than 1 year and 5 months
4 inmates
1.8 m²
overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
6,300
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy