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 >> BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 28682/07 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Third Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 659 (19 July 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/659.html Cite as: [2016] ECHR 659 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28682/07, 24101/08, 7288/09, 18211/09, 32285/09, 42339/09, 73440/10, 58920/11, 68901/11, 37207/12, 37214/12, 59283/12, 62167/12, 74207/12, 46366/13, 56680/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 July 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Badretdinov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom,
President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 June 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in sixteen applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by sixteen Russian nationals (“the applicants”). The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applications were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
4. All the applicants were convicted by Russian courts and given custodial sentences.
5. They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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
7. The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. The Government’s request for the case to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention
8. The Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the cases out of its list. They acknowledged that the applicants had been detained in conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and offered to pay a sum of money.
9. The applicants rejected the Government’s settlement offer.
10. Having studied the terms of the Government’s declarations, the Court is satisfied that the Government have acknowledged a breach of the applicants’ right to the protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in comparable cases (see Yepishin v. Russia, no. 591/07, § 65, 27 June 2013; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014; and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, 12 November 2015). Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case.
11. For the above reasons, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the case out of its list under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
B. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
C. Merits
13. The Government did not dispute the applicants’ factual submissions relating to the overcrowding in penitentiary facilities, a shortage of sanitary installations and their poor state of repair. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see 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.
14. In the leading case of Butko v. Russia (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. In the light of the material submitted to it, the Court finds that the applicants had been detained in the conditions which were inhuman and degrading.
15. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. 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.”
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law in similar cases (cited in paragraph 10 above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums listed in the Appendix.
18. 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;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
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 19 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Helena Jäderblom
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
