THIRD SECTION
CASE OF VNUCHKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 48749/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vnuchkov 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 13 September 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 July 2016.
2. The applicant was represented by Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
3. The application was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport and poor conditions of detention in a remand facility. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF POOR CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT
6. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He 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 Court notes that the applicant was detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicant’s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118‑120, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53‑60, 31 July 2008). 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 Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122‑141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
8. In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention during his transport were inadequate.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 ON ACCOUNT OF POOR CONDITIONS OF DETENTION IN A REMAND FACILITY
11. The applicant complained about poor conditions of his detention in remand facility no. IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg.
12. The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by that complaint. They acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention in that facility, offered to pay the applicant 3,765 euros and invited the Court to strike the application in this part out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.
13. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in the part related to the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in facility no. IZ-47/4.
14. The applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.
15. The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case in this part should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
16. 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 application in the part concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg.
17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in this part.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
18. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
19. 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. 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.”
21. The applicant submitted a claim for costs and expenses, asking the Court to award him 50,000 Russian roubles for legal services.
22. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 2017), the Court does not consider it necessary to award the applicant anything in addition to the sum which the Government offered to pay him under the unilateral declaration.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in the part concerning the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of detention in facility no. IZ-47/4 in St Petersburg, and declares the complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that the complaint discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention as concerns the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
3. Dismisses the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Means of transport
Start and end date
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Amount awarded under the friendly settlement between the parties
(in euros)[1]
48749/16
12/07/2016
Aleksey Viktorovich Vnuchkov
31/01/1991
Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna
St Petersburg
van, transit cell
07/12/2015 to
20/02/2016
0.5 m²
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food
3,765
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy