THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PUZRINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 5855/09 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Puzrina 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 18 January 2018,
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 detention during their transport. 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. 46330/10
6. The applicant, Mr Suzdalev, (application no. 46330/10) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s sister, Ms E. Suzdaleva, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request.
7. The Court considers that the applicant’s sister has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of her brother’s right related to the inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see Streltsov and other “Novocherkassk military pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 8549/06 and 86 others, §§ 36-42, 29 July 2010; Sobelin and Others v. Russia, nos. 30672/03 and 11 others, §§ 43-45, 3 May 2007; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; and Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005).
8. Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Suzdaleva has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 46330/10 on behalf of her late brother.
III. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration 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).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
10. The 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.”
11. 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, §§ 118‑120, 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, §§ 122‑141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
15. 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-149 and §§ 152‑158, 22 May 2012, regarding the reasons for the lengthy detention on remand and lack of speedy review of detention; and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014, pertaining to absence of domestic remedies for a complaint about the poor conditions of transport.
VI. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
16. In applications nos. 46330/10 and 42878/16, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
17. 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.
VII. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. 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.”
19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
20. 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 Ms Suzdaleva, the sister of the applicant in application no. 46330/10, has locus standi in the proceedings;
3. Rejects the Government’s request to strike some applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
4. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport 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 applications nos. 46330/10 and 42878/16 inadmissible;
5. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
6. 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);
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 8 February 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 during transport)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Means of transport
Start and end date
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]
5855/09
18/11/2008
Svetlana Aleksandrovna Puzrina
06/08/1961
transit cell
23/10/2009 to
02/07/2010
van
23/10/2009 to
02/07/2010
0.5 m²
0.2 m²
damp underground cell, no natural light or fresh air, dim electric light, no ventilation, walls covered with cement coat
dirty van, lack of fresh air, no ventilation
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - the period of pre-trial detention from 22/05/2008 till conviction on 15/11/2010; fragile reasoning for non-violent crime; lack of diligence on the part of authorities
3,400
46330/10
23/07/2010
Aleksey Yuryevich Suzdalev
14/05/1978
transit cell, van
11/07/2010 to
19/05/2011
0.2 m²
overcrowding, lack of sitting places, no ventilation and fresh air, dirty and hot in summer and cold in winter, due to the medical condition the applicant needed to use toilet often, but was not given this possibility by the guards, inmates infected with tuberculosis, no hot meals
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention on remand from 11/07/2010 to 01/03/2011,
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 30/12/2010, the appeal examined only on 10/02/2011
1,300
70881/13
25/09/2013
Sergey Vladimirovich Kramarenko
29/10/1977
Train
07/04/2013 to
11/04/2013
transit cell
11/04/2013 to
11/04/2013
train
14/04/2013 to
16/04/2013
train
18/04/2013 to
20/04/2013
transit cell
23/04/2013 to
24/04/2013
0.3 m²
1.5 m²
1 m²
0.3 m²
0.4 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, lack of fresh air, passive smoking
overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food
overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, passive smoking
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, passive smoking
overcrowding, no sleeping places, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
1,000
6216/14
03/01/2014
Andrey Alekseyevich Zaytsev
24/08/1964
train
28/11/2013 to
28/11/2013
0.3 m²
no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -
1,000
53395/15
03/11/2015
Sergey Yevgenyevich Mokhnatkin
06/03/1954
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
van, train
23/04/2015 to
04/05/2015
0.3 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, impossibility to stand up, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
1,000
33531/16
26/05/2016
Mikhail Nikolayevich Baurov
15/06/1978
train, van, transit cell
15/11/2015 to
10/12/2015
0.3-0.6 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, insufficient number of sleeping places
1,000
34065/16
25/05/2016
Gennadiy Sergeyevich Afanasyev
08/11/1990
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
van, train
01/12/2015 to
02/12/2015
train, van
05/12/2015 to
05/12/2015
0.4 m²
0.3 m²
overcrowding
overcrowding
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -
1,000
42878/16
08/07/2016
Andrey Aleksandrovich Aksenov
11/07/1990
van
11/01/2016 to
15/01/2016
0.3 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
1,000
50716/16
12/10/2016
Sergey Viktorovich Matskevich
09/06/1986
train
07/06/2016 to
09/06/2016
train
15/06/2016 to
17/06/2016
train
23/06/2016 to
24/06/2016
0.5 m²
0.5 m²
0.5 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law -
1,000
64175/16
24/10/2016
Gennadiy Olegovich Zayev
15/03/1990
Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich
Pechora
van
25/07/2016 to
25/07/2016
van
04/09/2016 to
04/09/2016
train
04/09/2016 to
04/09/2016
0.3 m²
0.4 m²
0.3 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air
overcrowding
overcrowding
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy