THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ULEZKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 12683/16 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ulezkin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 May 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. 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 17029/16, 47807/16 and 20305/17, the applicants submitted complaints also under Article 13 of the Convention, subject to 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. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 47807/16, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. 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 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 application no. 47807/16 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. 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);
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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
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
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]
12683/16
22/02/2016
Nikolay Nikolayevich Ulezkin
23/02/1970
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
13/08/2012
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
6 toilet(s)
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no warm water, no warm clothes/warm blankets
11,500
17029/16
15/03/2016
Sergey Vasilyevich Tushkanov
01/01/1977
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
05/11/2011
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 13 day(s)
2.3 m²
6 toilet(s)
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no place to dry clothes, insufficient time to eat, lack of warm clothes and shoes, poor quality of bed linen, shower once a week, insufficient washing facilities, lack of requisite medical assistance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
11,500
19092/16
25/03/2016
Ilya Yevgenyevich Kazanskiy
24/06/1987
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod
28/11/2011 to
16/12/2016
5 year(s) and 19 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.3 m²
6 toilet(s)
poor quality of food, no drying rack, no hot water, poor clothes and shoes supply
7,300
43394/16
29/06/2016
Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Valov
10/10/1980
IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod
24/11/2008
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.2 m²
6 toilet(s)
overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
10,500
47807/16
16/01/2017
German Viktorovich Putilov
26/12/1970
IK-349/46 Nevyansk Sverdlovsk Region
27/09/2010 to
16/08/2016
5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)
150 inmate(s)
0.6 m²
1 toilet(s)
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, insufficient number of sleeping places, bunk beds, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,000
8974/17
16/01/2017
Eduard Elbrusovich Zagalov
21/10/1983
IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod
06/12/2010 to
06/09/2016
5 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 1 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.2 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
5,000
20305/17
03/03/2017
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Okladnikov
21/05/1977
IK-36/5 Krasnoyarsk
20/04/2016 to
03/07/2017
1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s)
140 inmate(s)
2.25 m²
4 toilet(s)
lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
5,800
20324/17
28/02/2017
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Vinyukov
15/11/1991
IK-1 Arkhangelsk Region
23/12/2015 to
07/04/2017
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)
90 inmate(s)
1.6 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell
5,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy