THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PUKHACHEV AND ZARETSKIY v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 17494/16 and 20203/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 November 2017
FINAL
07/02/2018
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Luis López Guerra,
Helen Keller,
Dmitry Dedov,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Alena Poláčková, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 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 Russian Government ("the Government") were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
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 detention during their transport.
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 two 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’ detention 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, §§ 118‑20, 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 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 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 case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑108, 22 May 2012, 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.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no 29203/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. 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 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 during transport admissible, and the remainder of application no. 29203/16 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
4. 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 7 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen PhillipsHelena Jäderblom
RegistrarPresident
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 name
Date of birth
Means of transport
Start and end date
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
1.
17494/16
09/03/2016
Igor Yevgenyevich Pukhachev
07/06/1980
van, transit cell
eighty-eight occasions in the period from
20/12/2012 to
09/03/2016
each trip lasted two hours.
0.5 sq m
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of hygienic facilities, numerous occasions of transport from the detention facility to take part in investigative actions, transport without proper food on those days, inmates sitting on each others’ knees due to the overcrowding, transport up to two times per week
1,000
2.
29203/16
20/04/2016
Yevgeniy Viktorovich Zaretskiy
13/07/1969
van, transit cell
01/12/2015 to
01/12/2015;
trip lasted two hours.
0.5 sq m
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of hygienic facilities, extremely low temperature, transport started early in the morning, around 6 a.m., several strip searches on the way
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy