[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MERZLYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 60839/13 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 1...) [2017] ECHR 418 (04 May 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/418.html Cite as: CE:ECHR:2017:0504JUD006083913, [2017] ECHR 418, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0504JUD006083913

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

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

CASE OF MERZLYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 60839/13 and 7 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 Merzlyachenko 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 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 (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36-40, 7 April 2005).

8.  In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, 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.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11.  In applications nos. 60839/13, 63289/13, 63379/13, 63440/13, 63632/13 and 63638/13, 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 Sergey Babushkin case (cited above, §§ 38-45).

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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.”

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case-law 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.

14.  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 applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications 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	Representative name and location	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.	60839/13 13/09/2013	Aleksey Vasilyevich Merzlyachenko 01/04/1978	Gordeyeva Margarita Vladimirovna Astrakhan	IK-2 Astrakhan 31/10/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 5 month(s)	2.4 m²	Low temperature in the dormitory in winter time, 4 pans and 3-5 sinks for 100 inmates, drinking water is not freely supplied, poor quality of food, insects, rodents.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	15,300
2.	63289/13 19/09/2013	Nikolay Georgiyevich Plokhutenko 20/07/1954		IK-30 Perm Region 28/12/2011 to 19/09/2013 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s)	1.5 m²	No ventilation. Insufficient space for outdoor exercise, 8 pans and 6 sinks for 130 inmates, no hot water, poor quality of food.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
3.	63379/13 19/09/2013	Aleksey Mukharamovich Ismagulov 13/08/1979		IK-30 Perm Region 19/05/2011 to 19/09/2013 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 1 day(s)	1.5 m²	No ventilation, 8 pans and 6 sinks for 130 inmates, no hot water, 10 showers and 1 hour to use them for 130 inmates, poor quality of food, insufficient space for outdoor exercise.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
4.	63440/13 18/09/2013	Aleksandr Yuryevich Pisanko 27/08/1986		IK-30 Perm Region 15/10/2011 to 18/09/2013 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 4 day(s)	1.5 m²	No ventilation. 8 pans, 6 sinks for 130 inmates, no hot water. 10 showers and 1 hour to use them for 130 inmates. Poor quality of food. Insufficient space for outdoor exercise.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
5.	63632/13 19/09/2013	Firudin Ramazanovich Mekhdiyev 12/10/1981		IK-30 Perm Region 15/12/2011 to 17/09/2013 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 3 day(s)	1.5 m²	No ventilation, 8 pans, 6 sinks for 130 inmates, 10 showers and 1 hour to use them for 130 inmates, poor quality of food, insufficient space for outdoor exercise.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
6.	63638/13 19/09/2013	Ivan Konstantinovich Moskaltsov 14/10/1951		IK-30 Perm Region 24/11/2011 to 18/09/2013 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 26 day(s)	1.5 m²	No ventilation, 8 pans and 6 sinks for 130 inmates, 10 showers and 1 hour to use them for 130 inmates, poor quality of food, insufficient space for outdoor exercise.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
7.	80928/13 29/11/2013	Sergey Nikolayevich Dolbin 14/02/1976		IK-7-28 Kirov Region 18/01/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 13 day(s)	2.5 m²	Poor quality of water, almost no access to natural light.		15,300
8.	38267/15 18/07/2015	Stepan Anatolyevich Derzibashev 10/02/1991	Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krsanoyarsk	IK-17 Krasnoyarsk 18/10/2010 to 21/07/2011 9 month(s) and 4 day(s)   IK-30 Norilsk Krasnoyarsk Region 25/07/2011 to 02/02/2015 3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 9 day(s)	1.1 m²	No ventilation, lack of sanitary facilities.       No ventilation, high humidity, no privacy when using lavatory, the applicant’s bed was 1 m away from the lavatory, 5 sinks and 5 pans for 130-170 inmates.		5,000

 

 




---

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