[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GUSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 28348/13 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5...) [2017] ECHR 419 (04 May 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/419.html Cite as: [2017] ECHR 419, CE:ECHR:2017:0504JUD002834813, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0504JUD002834813

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF GUSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application nos. 28348/13 and 5 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 May 2017

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Gusev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2017,

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 a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “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, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145-147 and 149).

8.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54-64, 12 November 2015, 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. 28348/13, 63693/14, 53169/15 and 58195/15, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 100-119, 10 January 2012; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 139-149, 22 May 2012; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In application no. 28348/13, 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 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

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, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015) and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, 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. 28348/13 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 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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Karen Reid                                                                     Luis López Guerra
 Registrar                                                                               President




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	Sq. m. per inmate	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]
1.	28348/13 25/03/2013	Yevgeniy Anatolyevich Gusev 07/06/1983	SIZO-2 Vologda 14/03/2012 to 19/08/2013 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 day(s)		lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects	Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms: Last court hearings took place on 13.06.2015; the applicant does not precise the exact dates of other court hearings.   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - Special cells in the court; the applicant does not precise the exact dates of the court hearings: according to the applicant, the total number of the court hearings from 08.08.2013 to 20.08.2015 is 192. ,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention -	8,500
2.	63693/14 01/09/2014	Aydar Almasovich Shaykhullin 08/12/1971	IK-5 Lepley Republic of Mordovia 13/08/2000 to 06/03/2015 14 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 1.9 m² 1 toilet(s)	overcrowding, lack of sleeping places, 5 functioning sinks, not hot water, squat toilet without flushing system in outhouse, unpleasant odour from toilet permeated the premises, passage between the sleeping places less than 70 cm, no heating and no drinking water in January of 2001, lived out in the open in spring of 2001 until the heating pipes were repaired, inmates infected with tuberculosis, HIV, itch, syphilis and open tuberculosis, no disinfection of cells by the administration despite of contagiousness of tuberculosis, lack of natural light and fresh air, no ventilation, infestation with mice, rats, spiders, cockroaches, poor condition of bedding and bed linen, one set of bed linen for 16 months, not provided with warm seasonal clothes and shoes, poor food quality, canteen walls covered with mould and black slime, unsanitary conditions in canteen	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	6,750
3.	53169/15 15/10/2015	Aleksey Mikhaylovich Koval 27/06/1977	IZ-1 Ivanovo 19/08/2009 to 20/04/2015 5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 2 day(s)	1.5 m² 1 toilet(s)	overcrowding, insufficient number of beds in the cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, no ventilation, artificial light never turned off, constant flows, cigarette smoke in cell, lack of sleep, lack of showers, intolerable smell, rats and mice in cell, mould and fungus in cell, no hot water	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	19,300
4.	58195/15 10/11/2015	Yulian Yevgenyevich Nemtsev 11/12/1981	FKU IK-1 21/06/2014 pending More than 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 15 day(s)	50 inmate(s) 1.6 m²	poor quality of food, poor sanitary facilities, shower once per week, sick and healthy cell-mates kept together, no privacy in toilet, no hot water	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	9,000
5.	22883/16 11/04/2016	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Kirdinov 18/06/1955	FKU IK-11 Bor 25/07/2006 pending More than 10 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 10 day(s)	135 inmate(s) 2 m² 6 toilet(s)	overcrowding, poor quality of food, lack of warm clothes and shoes, no hot water, no place to dry laundry, lack of time to eat, lack of toilets and washing facilities		7,750
6.	24726/16 24/04/2016	Viktor Yuryevich Shein 08/05/1981	FKU IK-12 Sheksna 01/08/2008 pending More than 8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2 day(s)	30 inmate(s) 1.3 m²	overcrowding, no hot water, poor sanitary facilities, video surveillance of the cells		7,750

 

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.