ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 9150/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 954 (08 November 2016)

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 Aracı Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President

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

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 9150/05 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 954 (08 November 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/954.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2016:1108JUD000915005, [2016] ECHR 954, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1108JUD000915005