THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STROKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 55058/13 and 7 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 27 February 2018
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
STRASBOURG
11 January 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Strokov 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 7 December 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 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, cited above, 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 and arguments raised by the parties, including the Government’s argument related to the application of the six-month time-limit to application no. 12194/16, 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.
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. 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-119, regarding the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about inadequate conditions of detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, §§ 139-149 and §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012, concerning poor conditions of transport, an excessively lengthy detention on remand in the absence of relevant reasons, and absence of a speedy review of detention; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning confinement of an applicant to a metal cage in a courtroom.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In applications nos. 8167/17 and 12700/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. 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.
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, cited above), 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 the applications nos. 8167/17 and 12700/17 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints 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 11 January 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]
55058/13
06/08/2013
Ivan Leonidovich Strokov
17/08/1977
IZ-1 Sverdlovsk Region
24/02/2015 to 01/03/2015
6 day(s)
IZ-1 Kemerovo building 2
cell 38
30/04/2015 to 04/05/2015
5 day(s)
2 m²
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
lack of or insufficient electric light, no ventilation, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places
1,000
12194/16
21/09/2015
Vasiliy Anatolyevich Myagkov
25/04/1982
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
10/09/2014 to 26/10/2015
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)
2-2.5 m²
lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
5,500
24305/16
02/11/2016
Mikhail Alekseyevich Magolyasov
06/07/1972
IZ-3 Novocherkassk
27/06/2016 to 22/07/2016
26 day(s)
25 inmate(s)
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, passive smoking, no or restricted access to running water
1,000
70669/16
11/10/2016
Timirlan Saidovich Tsatsayev
06/06/1993
Andisova Risalat Gadzhiyevna
Moscow
SIZO-3, Moscow
20/11/2014 to 25/07/2016
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)
24 inmate(s)
1.3-2.1 m²
1 toilet(s)
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance, mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transported by prison van, train on 23/07/2016 until 26/07/2016; detained in an overcrowded collective cell
9,400
6623/17
01/12/2016
Dmitriy Vladimirovich Uglov
23/04/1985
Semenov Maksim Vladimirovich
St Petersburg
IZ-1 St-Petersburg "Kresty" cells 209, 177
28/09/2016 to 07/07/2017
9 month(s) and 10 day(s)
1.9 m²
lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no ventilation
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – 07/10/2016 at the hearing the applicant was in a metal cage,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - lack of reasoning, since his placement in detention on 28/09/2016; placement under house arrest on 07/07/2017, non-violent crime; no confirmed risk of absconding or re-offending; no explanation why alternative measures will not work at that stage while at the same time house arrest had been chosen and no problems encountered;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - 48 days: detention order of 7/10/2016, appealed against on 10/10/2016, the appeal dismissed on 22/12/2016;
43 days: detention order of 13/08/2016, appealed against on 15/08/2016 and on 28/09/2016 the appeal decision was issued
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
9,750
8167/17
06/01/2017
Andrey Ivanovich Kotyuk
27/03/1968
Stepanov Aleksey Sergeyevich
Moscow
IZ-5 Moscow cells 404, 04, 304, 609, 607;
IZ-1 Yaroslavl cell 506;[1]
27/06/2016 to 09/08/2016
1 month(s) and 14 day(s)
2.5 m²
passive smoking, no ventilation, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
1,400
10993/17
06/12/2016
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich Bogdanov
27/10/1988
SIZO –1 St Petersburg
22/09/2014 to 08/09/2017
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)
2 m²
overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient natural light
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - arrested on 8/04/2014 and still in pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
14,300
12700/17
26/12/2016
Yuriy Vladimirovich Yelovikov
25/09/1979
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
10/03/2017
pending
More than 8 month(s) and
9 day(s)
4 inmate(s)
2 m²
lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water
3,900
[1] Rectified on 27 February 2018: “IZ-1 Ivanovo” has been deleted.
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy