THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SUCHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 6496/14 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 May 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Suchkov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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.”
7. 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, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑165, 10 January 2012). 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, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36–40, 7 April 2005).
8. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 6496/14, 8185/14, 10447/14, 11990/14, 23057/14 and 30097/14, the 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 Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 38-45.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case‑law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
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
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Number of 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]
6496/14
18/12/2013
Aleksandr Borisovich Suchkov
06/09/1963
IK-6 Samara Region
31/12/2004 to
01/11/2013
8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)
120 inmate(s)
4 toilet(s)
absence of toilet bowls was particularly bothersome for the applicant suffering from arthritis and osteochondrosis and using walking stick, insects, only one pair of shoes for every two years (both winter and in summertime), tuberculosis, hepatitis and scabies-infected inmates in cell, no individual sleeping place, poor lighting, poor quality of food
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
8185/14
11/12/2013
Artem Sergeyevich Ilyushin
18/01/1984
IK-29 Kirov Region
07/07/2010
pending
More than 6 year(s) and
8 month(s) and 24 day(s)
230 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
tuberculosis-infected inmates in the unit, poor sanitary conditions in toilets (stench and insects and no heating), poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of water, no ventilation
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
15,000
9962/14
09/01/2014
Sergey Petrovich Kucherov
13/09/1968
IK-13 Sverdlovskiy Region
15/07/2005
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s)
187 inmate(s)
1 m²
5 toilet(s)
5 sinks, no hot water, squat toilets
14,800
10447/14
23/12/2013
Aleksey Yuryevich Belov
05/11/1976
IK-30 Perm Region
25/11/2011 to
13/11/2013
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)
130 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
8 toilet(s)
6 sinks, no ventilation, poor quality of food, overcrowding, lack of space for outdoor exercise (60 sq. m.), no hot water
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
11990/14
10/04/2014
Sergey Mikhaylovich Koshelev
09/05/1971
IK-29 Kirov Region
27/01/2009 to
23/04/2014
5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)
IK-29 Kirov Region
30/07/2014 to
21/01/2015
5 month(s) and 23 day(s)
1.5 m²
2.4 m²
no ventilation, lack of space for outdoor exercise, no heating in toilet house
no heating in toilet house, lack of space in a dining room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
6,800
17857/14
19/03/2014
Sergey Valeryevich Pavlov
15/08/1981
IK-5 Kirov Region
03/04/2012 to
23/10/2014
2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 21 day(s)
2.5 m²
no ventilation, no hot water, poor quality of water, low temperature, no access to natural light, poor lighting, mould on the walls
7,000
21159/14
03/07/2014
Oleg Olegovich Sitnov
06/05/1984
IK-52/1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
17/10/2012
pending
More than 4 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 14 day(s)
no ventilation, no individual sleeping place (sleeping on the floor), irregular outdoor exercise, low temperature, poor lighting
13,300
22581/14
01/03/2014
Pavel Leonidovich Golovnev
05/12/1983
IK-1 Tver Region
05/09/2013
pending
More than 3 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 26 day(s)
1.4 m²
mice and rats, stench, no ventilation
12,800
23057/14
08/01/2014
Igor Anatolyevich Kalashnikov
05/02/1968
IK-29 Kirov Region
20/06/2011 to
04/12/2013
2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)
2.5 m²
almost no access to fresh air and natural light, low partition between the toilet and the living space, the toilet was 1 m away from the dining table, no privacy when using toilet, stench
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
30097/14
20/07/2014
Maksim Sergeyevich Zyuzin
27/04/1981
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region
23/01/2014
pending
More than 3 year(s) and
2 month(s) and 8 day(s)
no partition between the toilet and the living space, no ventilation, poor access to natural light, poor lighting, poor sanitary conditions
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
11,800
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy