THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SOLONENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 50407/10 and 4 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 February 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Solonenko 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 1 February 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 their detention. The 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 APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In certain cases the Government submitted unilateral declarations 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).
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. 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).
9. 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.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, as well as the Government’s objections related to the application of the six-month time‑limit and the loss of the victim status by the applicant in case no. 50407/10 (see, for similar considerations, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 26-39, 20 February 2014, and Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 66-79, 17 December 2009), 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 rejects the Government’s admissibility objections and considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
12. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-119, pertaining to the lack of domestic remedies to complain about the conditions of detention; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 50407/10 the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the complaints 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 application no. 50407/10 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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 certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
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 application no. 50407/10 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these applications 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 22 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)
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
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]
50407/10
26/07/2010
Sergey Viktorovich Solonenko
06/10/1972
Knyazkin Sergey Aleksandrovich
Moscow
IZ-1 Barnaul
05/08/2009 to
19/05/2011
1 year(s) and
9 month(s)
and 15 day(s)
4 m²
1 toilet(s)
Lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
6,800
52703/14
21/07/2014
Mikhail Mikhaylovich Kokorev
09/02/1985
Yeremin Vitaliy Viktorovich
Moscow
IZ-2 Moscow
11/12/2013 to
22/10/2014
10 month(s)
and 12 day(s)
2 inmate(s)
4 m²
1 toilet(s)
Lack of or insufficient natural light, constant electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, overcrowding.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 09/12/2013 to 22/10/2014;
Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
6,000
62071/15
03/12/2015
Mark Aleksandrovich Bronovskiy
10/05/1979
Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich
St Petersburg
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
14/02/2014
Pending.
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s)
and 29 day(s)
1.5 m²
1 toilet(s)
Overcrowding, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, poor quality of food.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention since 14/02/2014;
Still pending; Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding after such a lengthy period of detention; Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
17,900
749/16
11/02/2016
Igor Aleksandrovich Fateyev
12/02/1989
Sotskov Fedor Nikolayevich
Moscow
IZ-77/1 Moscow
30/06/2015 to
15/03/2017
1 year(s)
and 8 month(s)
and 16 day(s)
2.18 m²
Overcrowding, insufficient number of beds in the cell.
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention from 30/06/2015 till conviction on 06/07/2016; Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colliding or absconding; Failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.
9,400
52081/16
10/08/2016
Sergey Aleksandrovich Vardugin
09/04/1980
IK-2 Ekaterinburg
(cell-type facility)
09/12/2015 to
13/02/2016
2 month(s)
and 5 day(s)
8 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
Overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.
1,700
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy