THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 9150/05, 4307/08, 19070/08, 33463/08, 40928/08, 50139/08, 54919/08, 56523/08, 60244/08, 15616/09, 18437/09, 42124/09, 55689/09, 59733/09, 1607/10, 3936/10, 8298/10, 46398/10, 71197/11, 40631/12, 53963/12, 57932/12, 66725/12, 75430/12, 75718/12, 22168/13, 23402/13, 27657/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 November 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zadonskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pere Pastor Vilanova,
Georgios A. Serghides, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in twenty-eight applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applications were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
4. All the applicants were convicted by Russian courts and given custodial sentences.
5. They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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
7. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The Government’s request for the case to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention
8. The Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the cases out of its list. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and offered to pay a sum of money.
9. The applicants rejected the Government’s settlement offer.
10. Having studied the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government have acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right to the protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in comparable cases (see Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014; Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, 12 November 2015, and Badretdinov and Others v. Russia, no. 28682/07 et al., 19 July 2016). Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case.
11. For the above reasons, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
B. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
C. Merits
13. The Government did not dispute the applicants’ factual submissions relating to the overcrowding in penitentiary facilities, a shortage of sanitary installations and their poor state of repair. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see 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.
14. In the leading case of Butko v. Russia (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In the light of the material submitted to it, the Court finds that the applicants had been detained in the conditions which were inhuman and degrading.
15. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICANT MR MIRONOV
16. The applicant Mr Mironov (application no. 4307/08) further complained that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints about the conditions of detention, in breach of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention which provides:
“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.”
17. The Court has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government in cases concerning inadequate conditions of an applicant’s detention and found them to be lacking in many regards. The Court has held, in particular, that the Government were unable to show what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or any other State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant’s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant’s personal situation alone (see, generally, the authorities cited in Ananyev and Others, § 99 and ‒ specifically with regard to correctional colonies ‒ Butko, cited above, §§ 43-47, with further references).
18. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court declares this complaint admissible and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint about the conditions of detention in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. 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.”
20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Sergey Babushkin (just satisfaction), Butko and Badretdinov, all cited above, and Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia, nos. 11215/10 and 55068/12, § 30, 13 September 2016), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums listed in the Appendix.
21. 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 the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Mr Mironov;
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 8 November 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Detained, from
Detained,
until
Facility
Award, euros
9150/05
02/05/2006
Sergey Mikhaylovich ZADONSKIY
08/02/1956
Lesnoy
03/07/2001
22/02/2006
IK-5
Mordoviya Repubic
14,800
4307/08
10/12/2007
Andrey Yuryevich MIRONOV
18/02/1987
Chaykovskiy
14/10/2006
18/06/2007
IK-38
Perm Region
5,000
19070/08
03/08/2008
Igor Oksanovich USOV
23/07/1956
Olovyannaya
07/10/2004
03/08/2008
IK-7
Zabaykalskiy Region
13,500
33463/08
16/01/2009
Yuriy Yuryevich STASYUK
16/05/1961
Moscow
01/06/2008
14/11/2008
IK-11
Nizhniy Novgorod Region
5,000
40928/08
06/07/2008
Anatoliy Nikolayevich TIMOFEYEV
16/08/1955
Megra
28/08/2004
19/01/2012
IK-17
Vologda Region
15,000
50139/08
04/07/2008
Albert Kukurovich CHELIDZE
26/03/1965
Vorgashok
24/11/2006
15/12/2008
IK-8
Komi Republic
8,250
54919/08
26/01/2009
Efletdin Akhmedkhanovich BEDIRKHANOV
04/04/1965
Bor
15/05/2008
12/10/2008
IK-11
Nizhniy Novgorod Region
5,000
56523/08
07/04/2009
Aleksandr Pavlovich SHCHERBAKOV
19/01/1975
Narimanov
28/02/2008
24/01/2010
IK-6
Astrakhan
7,750
60244/08
12/09/2008
Dmitriy Valeryevich MOYSYUK
29/01/1974
Nelidovo
15/09/2008
30/03/2012
IK-8
Tver Region
12,500
15616/09
13/04/2009
Aleksandr Nikolayevich POTAPOV
04/09/1969
Bataysk
15/12/2007
13/04/2009
IK-15
Rostov Region
6,000
18437/09
21/02/2009
Rais Nazifovich ALKIN
13/07/1959
Perm
08/10/2005
27/08/2008
IK-9
Perm Region
10,500
42124/09
28/08/2009
Gleb Yuryevich SMOLNIKOV
17/10/1988
Bataysk
18/10/2008
28/08/2009
IK-15
Rostov Region
5,000
55689/09
03/12/2009
Timur Albertovich GALEYEV
23/02/1978
Kazan
13/07/2009
01/09/2009
IK-19
Tatarstan Republic
5,000
59733/09
23/12/2009
Aleksandr Nikolayevich SINICHKIN
02/08/1980
Bataysk
04/12/2007
23/12/2009
IK-15
Rostov Region
8,000
1607/10
07/12/2009
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SINYANSKIY
04/10/1968
Novosibirsk
13/02/2008
03/03/2010
IK-18
Novosibirsk Region
8,000
3936/10
24/03/2011
Nikolay Anatolyevich NOVOSELTSEV
26/09/1972
Barabinsk
21/07/2010
24/01/2011
IK-10
Novosibirsk Region
5,000
8298/10
14/04/2010
Vladislav Petrovich DOVGAN
22/01/1974
Bataysk
12/05/2006
14/04/2010
IK-15
Rostov Region
13,750
46398/10
07/09/2009
Natalya Nikolayevna SVETLOVA
01/02/1952
Nizhniy Novgorod
20/04/2007
18/09/2009
IK-2
Nizhniy Novgorod
9,500
71197/11
26/10/2011
Leonid AKSENTE
11/02/1970
Chișinău
27/06/2011
16/04/2012
IK-6
Tver Region
5,000
40631/12
06/06/2012
Yuriy Vladimirovich LAGUNOV
26/09/1967
Uva
21/08/2010
16/03/2012
IK-5
Kirov Region
6,500
53963/12
30/04/2012
Eduard Sharimzyanovich KASFATOV
27/01/1970
Salavat
07/09/2010
14/08/2012
IK-29
Kirov Region
7,750
57932/12
24/07/2012
Viktor Vasilyevich VIDANOV
23/09/1960
Sorda
10/06/2011
22/04/2012
IK-3
Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
5,000
66725/12
14/09/2012
Vadim Aleksandrovich TEREKHOV
28/12/1975
Voronezh
19/03/2010
23/03/2012
IK-3
Voronezh Region
8,000
75430/12
03/08/2012
Dmitriy Yuryevich LUZGIN
21/06/1968
Serpukhov
28/11/2011
14/01/2013
IK-11
Nizhniy Novgorod Region
5,250
75718/12
08/11/2012
Artur Aleksandrovich KOSITSYN
15/05/1977
Nizhniy Tagil
03/10/2011
08/11/2012
IK-13
Sverdlovskiy Region
5,000
22168/13
26/02/2013
Artur Ruslanovich TEKEYEV
15/06/1984
Nizhniy Tagil
15/07/2012
26/02/2013
IK-13
Sverdlovskiy Region
5,000
23402/13
05/03/2013
Vladislav Vladimirovich PATRATIY
03/06/1975
Severnyy
19/10/2008
05/03/2013
High Security Prison in the Ulyanovsk Region
14,400
27657/13
01/09/2010
Aleksey Ivanovich BUSOV
05/09/1968
Kungur
01/12/2009
01/05/2010
OIK-2 / IK-1
Perm Region
5,000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy