BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PROKHORENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 12204/15 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 293 (29 March 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/293.html Cite as: [2018] ECHR 293, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD001220415, CE:ECHR:2018:0329JUD001220415 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PROKHORENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 12204/15 and 2 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Prokhorenko 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 8 March 2018,Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: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. In application no. 12204/15 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 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-�101, ECHR 2016). 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 Muršić, cited above, §§ 122 -�141, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149-�159, 10 January 2012).8. In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, 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 application no. 12204/15 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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, cited above, §§ 100-119, concerning the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the poor conditions of detention and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, concerning the poor conditions of transport of detainees.IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 12204/15 the applicant also raised another complaint 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 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.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, § 172, 10 January 2012), 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. 12204/15 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 of the Convention 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 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
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] | |
15/02/2015 | Artem Aleksandrovich Prokhorenko 01/07/1985 | IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 21/11/2008 to 26/04/2015 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 day(s) | 4 inmate(s) 2 m²
| overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, constant electric light | Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 07/09/2012- 15/08/2014; transit cell, van, 0.7 m2; 24-25/09/2015; train, van; 0.5 m2. Overcrowding, no windows, no ventilation, lack of fresh air, lack of electric light; restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of bedding and/or bed linen, no warm meals, lack of physical exercise, insects/rodents, inadequate temperature
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention | 25,000 | |
20/10/2016 | Yevgeniy Valeryevich Petrov 12/01/1975 | IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod 05/09/2016 to 03/10/2016 29 day(s) | 11 inmate(s) 2.6 m² | lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of requisite medical assistance |
| 1,000 | |
12/12/2016 | Denis Sergeyevich Bankin 12/04/1977 | IZ-6 Moscow 15/08/2015 to 22/07/2016 11 month(s) and 8 day(s) | 1.2 m² | overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet |
| 5,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
