THIRD SECTION
CASE OF POTAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 40016/16 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 Potapov 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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.”
7. 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).
8. 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.
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 were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 38‑45, 28 November 2013.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
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, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 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 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
Number of 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]
40016/16
20/06/2016
Viktor Nikolayevich Potapov
16/09/1977
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma
04/03/2014 to
20/02/2016
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 17 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
1.9 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, 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
5,000
42313/16
07/07/2016
Idris Emaliyevich Batalov
24/06/1981
Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna
Krsanoyarsk
IK-36 Krasnoyarskiy krai
01/03/2003 to
03/05/2006
3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s)
Minusinsk prison, Krasnoyarskiy krai
03/05/2006 to
24/05/2009
3 year(s) and 22 day(s)
IK-36 Krasnoyarskiy krai
28/05/2009 to
11/02/2010
8 month(s) and 15 day(s)
IK-16 Gromadsk Krasnoyarskiy krai
11/02/2010 to
26/08/2010
6 month(s) and 16 day(s)
IK-30 Norilsk Krasnoyarskiy krai
04/09/2010 to
12/02/2016
5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 day(s)
1 m²
1.4 m²
1 m²
150 inmate(s)
1 m²
0.9 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower.
Overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower.
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower.
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower.
Lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
64760/16
18/10/2016
Yevgeniy Vasilyevich Gusev
19/11/1980
IK-11 Nizhegorodskiy region
28/11/2011
pending
More than 5 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 2 day(s)
1.2 m²
6 toilet(s)
Lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no hot water , no seasonal clothing.
7,800
67671/16
12/11/2016
Igor Vladimirovich Kotochigov
07/11/1974
IK-1 Arkhangelsk
01/10/2012
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
10 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1.6 m²
Overcrowding, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
7,500
69643/16
14/11/2016
Andrey Vladimirovich Kuznetsov
31/12/1984
IK-5 Ivanovo
01/06/2008 to
10/07/2016
8 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)
1.5 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
11009/17
23/01/2017
Ivan Aleksandrovich Lukach
30/12/1978
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
IK-20 Nizhny Novgorod Region
19/02/2012 to
09/12/2016
4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s)
22 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
1 toilet(s)
Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
11273/17
27/01/2017
Aleksandr Ilyich Egadze
16/06/1986
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
IK-4 Vologodskiy Region
10/12/2012 to
23/09/2016
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)
4 inmate(s)
8 m²
Lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
11281/17
13/01/2017
Pavel Sergeyevich Cherkasov
14/12/1984
Gaynutdinova Yuliya Sergeyevna
Kazan
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region
04/11/2010
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 26 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
No or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, clothes branding, prisoner in handcuffs has to bear the toilet.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
7,000
12934/17
01/02/2017
Ivan Aleksandrovich Gerasimov
01/07/1982
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
FKU IK-1 Kostroma Region
22/11/2015 to
10/01/2017
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 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 fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, 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
13727/17
07/02/2017
Yekaterina Anatolyevna Semenova
05/12/1987
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
FKU IK-3 Kostroma Region
06/08/2013 to
28/11/2016
3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s)
100 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
3 toilet(s)
Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, overcrowding, lack of space for outside activities, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, supervising by the personnel of the opposite sex, no or restricted access to shower.
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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy