CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF STUCHILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 50932/16 and 3 others – see appended list )                         JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   8 February 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Stuchilov 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 18 January 2018, 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 detention during their transport. 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 ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. 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 detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v.   Russia , no.   6847/02, §§   118 ‑ 120, ECHR   2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v.   Russia, no.   42239/02, §§   53 ‑ 60, 31   July 2008). 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 Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   122 ‑ 141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 159, 10   January 2012). 8.     In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC] , no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 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 during their transport were inadequate. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION AND LACK OF AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT 11.     The applicants in applications nos. 50932/16 and 54522/16 also complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about those conditions. 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 [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” The Government submitted declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained in poor conditions and that they had not had an effective domestic remedy to complain about it. They offered to pay 4,935 euros (EUR) to the applicant in application no. 50932/16 and EUR 7,625 to the applicant in application no.   54522/16 and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case, insofar as the above-mentioned complaints are concerned. The applicant in application no. 50932/16 informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration. The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties, insofar as the complaints about the conditions of detention and absence of a domestic remedy are concerned. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application in this part. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike application no. 50932/16 out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the detention conditions and lack of a remedy. The applicant in application no. 54522/16 did not respond to the Court’s letter by which it had sent him the declaration of the Government. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin   Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) ([GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI)). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration produced in respect of application no. 54522/16, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of that application insofar as it concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention and absence of an effective remedy in Russia to complain about poor conditions (Article 37 § 1 (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, application no. 54522/16, in the relevant part, may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37   §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike it out of the list in the part pertaining to the conditions of detention and lack of a domestic remedy. IV.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     In application no. 26979/17, the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention which also raised issues under the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor it is inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Dirdizov v. Russia , no.   41461/10, 27 November 2012. V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.     In application no.   26979/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined the complaints 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 application no. 26979/17 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia , nos.   17494/16 and 29203/16, 7 November 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.     Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration produced in relation to application no. 54522/16 and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;   3.     Decides to strike application no. 54522/16 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, insofar as it concerns the complaint about the poor conditions of detention and a lack of an effective remedy to complain about those conditions;   4.     Decides to strike application no. 50932/16 out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention, insofar as it concerns the complaint about the poor conditions of detention and a lack of an effective remedy to complain about those conditions;   5.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no.   26979/17 inadmissible;   6.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   7.     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);   8.     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 8 February 2018, 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 during transport) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Means of transport Start and end date 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]     50932/16 14/11/2016 Andrey Aleksandrovich Stuchilov 18/09/1981     train 07/06/2016 to 09/06/2016       train 15/06/2016 to 17/06/2016       train 23/06/2016 to 24/06/2016 0.25 m²           0.25 m²           0.25 m² insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet   lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of potable water, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet     1,000     54522/16 05/09/2016 Sergey Vladimirovich Petrushin 17/04/1973 Malinin Andrey Anatolyevich Pechora van 12/04/2016 to 13/04/2016   train 12/04/2016 to 13/04/2016     van 12/04/2016 to 13/04/2016   van 25/04/2016 to 26/04/2016   train 25/04/2016 to 26/04/2016   van 25/04/2016 to 27/04/2016 0.35 m²       0.29 m²         0.38 m²       0.38 m²       0.29 m²       0.35 m²     overcrowding       overcrowding         overcrowding       overcrowding       overcrowding       overcrowding     1,000     24303/17 21/03/2017 Vasiliy Viktorovich Kotlov 17/06/1978     train, transit cell 11/12/2016 to 25/12/2016 1 m²     overcrowding, lack of fresh air     1,000     26979/17 11/03/2017 Yelena Yevgenyevna Romanova 18/07/1982 Pavlenko Tatyana Nodariyevna St Petersburg van 12/03/2014 pending   lack of fresh air, overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention from 10/03/2014 and still pending; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; 5,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.