THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PULYAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48316/08 and 6 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pulyayev 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 9 November 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 LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION No. 26564/14
6. The applicant, Mr Okazov, (application no. 26564/14) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s daughter, Ms D. Okazova, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not comment.
7. The Court considers that the applicant’s daughter has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of her father’s rights raised in the application (see Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006, and Livada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 21262/06, §§ 34-35, 26 June 2014).
8. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Okazova has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 26564/14 on behalf of her late father.
III. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in certain cases 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 cases (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 merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
10. 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.”
11. The Court will firstly address the admissibility objections raised by the Government in respect of two applications. In particular, the Government argued that the applicant in application no. 58969/12 could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations because Russian courts had awarded him compensation for the unlawful criminal proceedings against him. In this respect, the Court reiterates the well-established principle of its case-law that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities must have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and, second, they must have afforded redress for it (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 67, 2 November 2010). The first condition was not met in the applicant’s case. There was no acknowledgement of a violation of his right related to the material conditions of his detention in the IVS facility, as well as the length of his pre-trial detention (see appended table for details). The applicant thus did not lose his victim status under Article 3 of the Convention and the Government’s admissibility objection in respect of application no. 58969/12 should be dismissed. The Government also argued that applicant in application no. 69047/13 had failed to comply with the six-month requirement. The Court observes that the applicant raised the present complaints to the Court for the first time in a letter which he dispatched on 23 October 2013. The fact was confirmed by a copy of the payment slip indicating the international shipment to the Court on that date. A copy of the payment slip was forwarded to the Government. The letter arrived to the Court on 25 October 2013. The period of detention in respect of which the applicant complained ended on 11 June 2013. It follows that applicant in application no. 69047/13 complied with the six-month time-limit and the Government’s objection to that effect should be rejected.
12. The Court further 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).
13. In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54-64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
14. 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.
15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. 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, including applications nos. 58969/12 and 69047/13 for the same reasons as were discussed by the Court in respect of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 11 above). 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 Ananyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-119, 10 January 2012, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention in Russia) and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, concerning reasons for and length of pretrial detention).
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.”
18. 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, 10 January 2012, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
19. 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. Decides that in application no. 26564/14 the applicant’s daughter, Ms Okazova, has locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some of the applications out of the list;
4. Declares the applications admissible;
5. Holds that the applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. 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 30 November 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
Inmates per brigade
Sq. m. per inmate
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]
48316/08
31/07/2008
Yevgeniy Ivanovich Pulyaev
12/11/1981
IZ-36/1 Voronezh
07/02/2007 to
12/12/2008
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)
1 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, insufficient number of sleeping places, passive smoking
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 05/02/2007-16/04/2008
10,100
58969/12
16/08/2012
Artem Viktorovich Kukushkin
04/07/1978
IVS Uray Tyumen Region, multiple occasions of detention in the period from
21/07/2011 to
18/09/2012
1.5 m²
Lack of natural lighting.
No partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was one metre away from the sleeping place.
No ventilation.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 20/07/2011-23/05/2012
1,300
58582/13
16/08/2013
Aleksey Yevgenyevich Krivorotov
06/05/1974
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
06/05/2012 to
22/02/2015
2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 17 day(s)
IZ-3 Vyborg
22/02/2015 to
10/05/2015
2 month(s) and 19 day(s)
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
10/05/2015 to
21/02/2017
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s)
2 m²
2 m²
2 m²
No partition between the lavatory and the living room, no privacy when using lavatory, poor lighting, no ventilation, no hot water.
inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents
lack of privacy for toilet
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrested on 06/05/2012; conviction on 29/09/2014; conviction quashed on
14/04/2015 and the applicant is in pre-trial detention.
21,500
69047/13
23/10/2013
Yevgeniy Gennadyevich Zybinskiy
11/07/1985
Zinnatullin Marat Munirovich
Krasnodar
IZ-23/1 Krasnodar
12/12/2011 to
11/06/2013
1 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, low partition between the lavatory and the living room, no ventilation,
maximum 45 minutes of daily outdoor exercises.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 11/12/2011-11/06/2013,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,500
26564/14
11/03/2014
Edem Ebazerovich Okazov
08/01/1967
Nikolayev Igor Anatolyevich
Valday
IZ-53/1 Novgorod
05/09/2012 to
14/05/2015
2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 10 day(s)
1 m²
squat toilet despite the fact that the applicant’s left leg was negatively affected by a cerebrovascular accident, limited access to natural light, poor lighting, poor ventilation, constant cigarette smoke
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrested on 03/09/2012, sentenced by the Valdayskiy District Court on 30/04/2014
13,300
to be paid into the bank account of the applicant’s daughter, Ms D. Okazova
52775/16
04/07/2016
Dmitriy Nikolayevich Ryndin
21/06/1975
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
IZ-2 Taganrog
15/04/2014 to
24/08/2014
4 month(s) and 10 day(s)
IZ-1 Rostov-on-Don
24/08/2014 to
01/03/2015
6 month(s) and 6 day(s)
IZ-2 Taganrog
01/03/2015 to
13/05/2016
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 day(s)
2.8-3.1 m²
1.7 m²
2-3.3 m²
insufficient number of sleeping places
insufficient number of sleeping places
insufficient number of sleeping places
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,300
53578/16
20/07/2016
Dmitriy Viktorovich Klimenko
29/06/1972
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
IZ-61/2 and IZ-61/1
the Rostov Region
05/02/2014 to
24/03/2016
2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s)
10 inmate(s)
2 m²
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
8,500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy