[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KASHESHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 6671/14 (Judgment : Violation of Prohibition of torture (Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)) [2017] ECHR 1081 (30 November 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/1081.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:1130JUD000667114, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:1130JUD000667114, [2017] ECHR 1081

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

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF KASHESHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application no. 6671/14 and 2 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

30 November 2017

 

 

 

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




In the case of Kasheshov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Luis López Guerra, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 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, which were incompatible with their disabilities, and that there was no effective remedy in that regard. In application no. 38840/14, the applicant 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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally about the poor conditions of their detention, aggravated by the seriousness of their medical problems, and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

7.  The Court notes that the applicants, who suffer from various disabilities, were kept in detention in poor conditions which did not satisfy their special needs. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention of disabled inmates (see, for instance, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 78-81, 10 May 2016, and Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 46-51, 22 March 2016). It reiterates in particular, that where the authorities decide to place and keep a disabled person in detention, they should demonstrate special care in securing detention conditions which correspond to the special needs resulting from his disability (see Butrin, cited above § 49; Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, § 72, 6 February 2014; Zarzycki v. Poland, no. 15351/03, § 102, 12 March 2013; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 56, 2 December 2004)

8  In the cases of Topekhin, Butrin and Semikhvostov (all cited above), 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 conditions of the applicants’ detention, exacerbated by their physical impairments, amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment” within the meaning of the Convention.

10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints (see, among other authorities, Butrin, cited above, §§ 43-45, and Semikhvostov, cited above, §§ 61-68).

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In application no. 38840/14, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

IV.  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, Butrin v. Russia, no. 16179/14, §§ 72-74, 22 March 2016, and Semikhvostov v. Russia, no. 2689/12, §§ 88-90, 6 February 2014), 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 conditions of detention of disabled inmates and the lack of any effective remedy in respect of these complaints admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 38840/14 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ detention in poor conditions and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection;

 

4.  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;

 

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

        Liv Tigerstedt                                                             Luis López Guerra

Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention

(conditions of detention of disabled inmates and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Type of disability	Detention with disability: facility and periods	Specific grievances	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1.	6671/14 16/12/2013	Daniyal Aminovich Kasheshov 05/06/1981		paraplegia in lower body (wheelchair user)	IK-5 Republic of Mordovia 20/08/2013 Pending   More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s)     several stays in prison hospital no. 21 (ЛПУ-21), Republic of Mordovia 07/08/2014 to 25/12/2015   1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)	inadequate entrance ramp, sanitary facilities are not fully adapted for the needs of wheelchair users, overcrowded section in brigade 5 dormitory, full dependence on inmates’ assistance     no wheelchair ramps inside the hospital wing, full dependence on inmates’ assistance	15,000
2.	38840/14 23/05/2014	Andrey Sergeyevich Chikanov 24/06/1981	Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Moscow	flail legs	IK-55/7 Tver Region 13/12/2010 to 08/04/2015   4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 27 day(s)	the applicant was assisted in his daily needs only by his inmates, no professional nursing assistance was available for him	15,000
3.	52289/14 24/07/2014	Rezvan Talabiyevich Elbiyev 16/05/1959	Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Moscow	right sided hemiparesis (wheelchair user)	IK-6, Vladimir Region 24/12/2009 to 08/02/2010   1 month(s) and 16 day(s)       IK-4, Vladimir Region 08/02/2010 Pending More than 7 year(s) and 8 month(s)	full dependence on inmates’ assistance: the applicant was unable to move within the territory of the facility, visit dining room, take shower, and go to the toilet without help from inmates   full dependence on inmates’ assistance; toilet and shower are not adapted for the needs of wheelchair users; territory of the facility, including walking yard, is not fully equipped with wheelchair ramps	15,000

 




---

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