[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> TSELOVALNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 17957/09 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)) [2017] ECHR 633 (06 July 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/633.html Cite as: [2017] ECHR 633

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

 

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

CASE OF TSELOVALNIK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 17957/09 and 7 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

6 July 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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




In the case of Tselovalnik 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 15 June 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.  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations in some of the applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of these cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  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.”

8.  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).

9.  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.

10.  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.

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

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  In applications nos. 33355/15, 20554/16 and 43651/16, the applicants submitted complaints under the Article 13 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, cited above, §§ 38-45.

V.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  In application no. 17957/09, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 of the Convention.

14.  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 matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does 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.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  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.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014 and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17.  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 on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;

 

3.  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 applications no. 17957/09 inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;

 

5.  Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

 

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 6 July 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 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	Number of inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade	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.	17957/09 03/03/2009	Sergey Vitalyevich Tselovalnik 25/07/1977	Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Moscow	IK-43 the Kemerovo Region (УН-1612/43) 02/04/2009 to 05/02/2010 10 month(s) and 4 day(s)	100 inmate(s) 1.9 m² 8 toilet(s)	overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet		4,650
2.	33355/15 26/09/2015	Konstantin Vasilyevich Bastrakov 26/09/1983		IK-46 Sverdlovsk Region 16/07/2011 to 05/11/2016 5 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 21 day(s)       IZ-66/1 Ekaterinburg 17/06/2015 to 16/07/2015 1 month(s)	148 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 5 toilet(s)                 0.6 m²	5 sinks for 148 inmates, poor lighting, no ventilation, high humidity, tuberculosis-infected inmates in the cell, insects       Insufficient sleeping places. Lack of light and ventilation.	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	8,500
3.	20554/16 07/04/2016	Konrad Bełdycki 12/05/1991	Zielinska-Turek Anna Aleksandra Olsztyn	IK-13 Slavyanovka Kaliningrad Region 15/07/2013 to 18/12/2015 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)	94 inmate(s) 1.6 m² 5 toilet(s)	overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
4.	43651/16 15/07/2016	Ruslan Ravilyevich Zaripov 10/08/1979		IK-3 Sverdlovsk Region (УЩ-349/3) 01/01/2005 to 31/05/2010 5 year(s) and 5 month(s)   IK-46 Sverdlovsk Region (УЩ-349/46) 10/06/2010 to 15/06/2016 6 year(s) and 6 day(s)	200 inmate(s) 1.1 m² 3 toilet(s)             110 inmate(s) 1.6 m²	lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, power outage   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -	5,000
5.	44739/16 21/07/2016	Sergey Mikhaylovich Lysenko 21/03/1959		IK-11 B or Nizhniy Novgorod Region 03/07/2012 pending More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2.2 m² 6 toilet(s)	no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, overcrowding		7,800
6.	44871/16 19/07/2016	Olga Anatolyevna Tikhomirova 27/09/1956	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-3 Kostroma Region 29/11/2013 to 20/05/2016 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 22 day(s)	2 m² 2 toilet(s)	lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance		5,000
7.	60559/16 02/10/2016	Denis Vladimirovich Pronozin 31/08/1988		IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 16/04/2012 pending More than 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)	140 inmate(s) 2 m²	no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, overcrowding		7,000
8.	60702/16 08/10/2016	Vadim Vladislavovich Gorbulya 05/03/1973		IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 06/03/2014 13/02/2017 More than 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s)		lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no ventilation, uses bucket as a lavatory pan and then empties it daily, no sewage system in the colony, no centralised water-supply system		6,300

 




---

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