FIRST SECTION
CASE OF
LAPSHOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no.
5288/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 October
2013
This judgment will become final in
the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lapshov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human
Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse,
Ksenija Turković,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
5288/08) 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 a Russian national, Mr Zakhar Viktorovich Lapshov (“the
applicant”), on 27 November 2007.
The applicant was represented by Mr V.
Polozhevets, a lawyer practising in Kaliningrad. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the
Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant alleged that he had been detained
in appalling conditions in the temporary detention centre pending investigation
and trial.
On 30 August 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1982 and is serving a
prison sentence in Kaliningrad.
On an unspecified date the applicant was charged
with robbery and remanded in custody. During the period between 26 July
2006 and 7 August 2007 he was detained on numerous occasions in a
temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk, Kaliningrad Region.
According to the applicant, the criminal
proceedings against him ended in his conviction for robbery. The final decision
on the matter was taken on 18 December 2007.
A. The description provided by the Government
According to the Government, the applicant was
detained in the temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk from 26 to
29 July, 11 to 13 September, 1 to 4 November, 13 to
23 December 2006, 17 to 24 January, 31 January to
7 February, 1 to 10 March, 11 to 14 and 18 to 21 April, 2
to 4 May, 30 May to 9 June, 14 to 18 and, 21 to 25 July and 1 to
7 August 2007. During the relevant periods he was brought to the centre in
order to participate in investigation activities and court hearings.
The Government were unable to indicate the exact
cell numbers where the applicant had been detained. Nor was it possible for the
Government to submit the information on the population of the temporary detention
centre at the time of the applicant’s detention. The Government provided the
following overview of all the cells in the temporary detention centre:
|
Cell
no.
|
Cell
surface, square metres
|
|
7
|
|
0
|
|
8
|
|
6
|
There were no individual beds in the cells. The
inmates had to share sleeping platforms. The number of inmates detained
together with the applicant varied from one to four. On the average, the number
of the inmates detained daily at the temporary detention centre was seven to
eight. There was no ventilation system. There was only artificial lighting. The
cells were lit by a 100-watt electric bulb. The cells were not equipped with a
toilet. Nor was there an outdoor exercise area.
B. The description provided by the applicant
According to the applicant, he was kept in a
windowless cell measuring approximately nine sq. m and housing from four to six
inmates. The cell was not equipped with a toilet. Instead, the inmates were to
use a tank placed in the cell. The person using it could be seen by others
present in the cell. The applicant had to stay indoors all the time. No daily
exercise was provided for. Nor was he given any bedding or a mattress. He
received one meal per day and had to eat standing or sitting on a bed with a
plate in the hands as there were no chairs or table in the cell.
In response to the applicant’s complaint about
conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre, the prosecutor’s
office carried out an inquiry which confirmed the applicant’s allegations. The
prosecutor asked the regional department of the interior to take measures
necessary to bring the conditions of detention in the temporary detention
centre in compliance with statutory standards. He also informed the Regional
Governor of the situation suggesting an allocation of budgetary funds for
reconstruction of the temporary detention centre. In particular, in his report
to the Governor, the prosecutor stated as follows:
“The inspection of the temporary detention centre of the
Bargationovsk department of the interior conducted by the regional prosecutor’s
office on 24 July 2007 in response to the complaints lodged by six persons
who had been detained there has disclosed a serious violation of all
requirements of the law: [toilets and sinks] are not installed, there are no
sanitary hygiene products in the stuffy cells; the inmates are served only one
meal a day, etc. As regards the medical assistance, ... the only medicine
available is analgin and citramonum with the passed expiration date.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The Federal Law on Detention of Suspects and
Defendants charged with Criminal Offences, in effect, as amended, since 21 June
1995, provides that suspects and defendants detained pending investigation and
trial are held in remand prisons (Article 8). They may be transferred to
temporary detention facilities if so required for the purposes of investigation
or trial and if transportation between a remand prison and a police station or
court-house is not feasible because of the distance between them. Such
detention in a temporary detention facility may not exceed ten days a month
(Article 13). Temporary detention facilities in police stations are designated
for the detention of persons arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence
(Article 9).
According to the
Internal Regulations for Temporary Detention Facilities, approved by Order No.
41 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on 26 January
1996, as amended (in force at the time of the applicant’s detention), the
living space per detainee should be four square metres (paragraph 3.3 of the
Regulations). It also made provision for cells in temporary detention
facilities to be equipped with a table, toilet, water tap, shelf for
toiletries, drinking water tank, radio and rubbish bin (paragraph 3.2 of the
Regulations). Furthermore, the Regulations made provision for detainees to have
outdoor exercise for at least one hour a day in a designated exercise area
(paragraphs 6.1, 6.40, and 6.43 of the Regulations).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the conditions of
his detention in the temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk, Kaliningrad
Region, had been incompatible with the standards set forth in 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. Admissibility
The Court notes that the application 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.
B. Merits
The Government acknowledged that the applicant’s
rights set out in Article 3 of the Convention have been infringed.
The applicant challenged the veracity of the
information submitted by the Government as regards the average number of
inmates detained at the temporary detention centre. According to the four
excerpts from the temporary detention centre population register submitted by the
applicant, the total number of inmates detained there varied on those dates
from nine to eleven.
. The
Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the
fundamental values of a democratic society. The Convention prohibits in
absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
irrespective of the circumstances or the victim’s behaviour (see Balogh v.
Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy
[GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). The Court has consistently
stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must, for a violation to
be found, go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation
connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures
depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. In
accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a
person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his
human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do
not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of
suffering inherent in detention (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.
30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
. Turning
to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the
Government, in principle, did not challenge the veracity of the applicant’s
allegations concerning the conditions of his detention in the temporary
detention centre. The cell in which the applicant was held on numerous
occasions had been designed for short-term detention not exceeding ten days.
Accordingly, it lacked the basic amenities indispensable for extended
detention. The cell did not have a window and offered no access to natural
light or air. There was no toilet or sink. Admittedly, during the period in
question the applicant spent certain time outside the cell participating in
investigative activities or court hearings. However, on certain days he was
confined to his cell for practically twenty-four hours a day without any
possibility to pursue physical and other out-of-cell activities.
In the Court’s opinion, such conditions of
detention caused the applicant considerable mental and physical suffering
diminishing his human dignity, which amounted to degrading treatment within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court further notes that the Government have
acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in conditions incompatible
with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.
Having regard to its established case-law on the
issue and the circumstances of the present case, the Court does not see any
reason to hold otherwise. There has been accordingly a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the degrading conditions of the
applicant’s detention in the temporary detention centre in Bargationovsk,
Kaliningrad Region, during multiple periods between 26 July 2006 and 7 August
2007.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.”
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered the applicant’s claims
excessive.
The Court observes that the applicant was
detained in appalling conditions in contravention of Article 3 of the
Convention. The Court considers that the applicant’s suffering and frustration
cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. However, the Court accepts the
Government’s argument that the specific amount claimed appears excessive.
Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the
applicant EUR 5,000, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed 50,000 Russian
roubles for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
The Government did not comment
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant
is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has
been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the
documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 850 for the proceedings before the
Court.
C. Default interest
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. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,, the following
amounts, to be converted into the currency of the
respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 850 (eight hundred fifty euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 October 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre
Registrar President
