THIRD SECTION
CASE OF VERESHCHAGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30155/05 and 2 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 Vereshchagin 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. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION AND THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THAT PART OF THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. The applicants in applications nos. 81155/12 and 3464/17 also complained about poor conditions of their transport. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The applicant in application no. 3464/17 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about his grievances under Article 3. Article 13 reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
8. The Government submitted unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints, having acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention, the poor conditions of transport and a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, where relevant. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay those amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases in the part related to the poor conditions of the applicants’ detention.
9. The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declarations.
10. The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the case in the parts related to the above complaints should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the applications in the parts concerning all applicants’ complaints about inadequate conditions of their detention, the complaint about poor conditions of transport in applications nos. 81155/12 and 3464/17, and the complaint about lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the inadequate conditions of detention in application no. 3464/17.
11. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list in these parts.
III. 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 Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 31-39, 2 November 2010; Shumikhin v. Russia, no. 7848/06, § 17, 16 July 2015; and Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, nos. 7618/09 and 30863/10, §§ 21-26, 26 March 2015, concerning the lawyers’ participation in appeal proceedings in a criminal case; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 June 2008, related to the impossibility to have meetings with a family member during the pre-trial detention; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessively lengthy and unreasonable detention on remand; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in court rooms.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
13. In application no. 30155/05, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. 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 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. 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. Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention insofar as they concern the poor conditions of the applicants’ detention, the poor conditions of transport (for applications nos. 81155/12 and 3464/17) and the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it (for application no. 3464/17).
3. Declares the complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the application no. 30155/05 inadmissible;
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.
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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
Representative name and location
Date of receipt of the Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of the applicant’s acceptance
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded, under the terms of the unilateral declaration, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
Amount awarded by the Court for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[2]
30155/05
10/07/2005
Aleksey Anatolyevch Vereshchagin
06/12/1972
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
30/09/2015
16/12/2015
Art. 6 (1) and 6 (3) (c) - unfair criminal proceedings in view of the lack of proper legal assistance - the applicant’s lawyer was absent in the appeal hearing on 19/05/2005 when the Altay Regional Court examined the appeal against his conviction; the applicant’s motion to adjourn was disregarded;
Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – the applicant was not allowed to see his pregnant wife while he was in pre-trial detention.
4,350
0
81155/12
12/12/2012
Yuriy Vladimirovich Osipenko
25/05/1976
Lioznova Anna Yevgenyevna
Rostov-on-Don
14/09/2016
21/11/2016
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention authorised and extended by the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, Novocherkassk Town Court and Rostov Regional Court;
in the period from 04/06/2010 and until his conviction on 27/09/2016;
- failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of reoffending, colliding or absconding, as the case progressed;
- failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed; - failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.
15,000
6,000
3464/17
29/12/2016
Dmitriy Yevgenyevich Lapshin
23/05/1988
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
30/06/2017
10/08/2017
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - cage in courtrooms during hearings in 2016.
5,000
4,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy