[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ZHIKHAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 10623/08 (Judgment : Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5...) [2017] ECHR 457 (18 May 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2017/457.html Cite as: [2017] ECHR 457, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0518JUD001062308, CE:ECHR:2017:0518JUD001062308

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

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF ZHIKHAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

 

(Application nos. 10623/08 and 5 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

18 May 2017

 

 

 

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

 




In the case of Zhikhar 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 Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 April 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 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in application no. 55708/08 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 the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike that application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.  THE LOCUS STANDI ISSUE FOR APPLICATION NO. 53215/08

7.  The applicant, Mr Gatskiy, (application no. 53215/08) died while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s civil partner, Ms Sopina, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government did not object to that request.

8.  The Court considers that the applicant’s partner has a legitimate interest in obtaining a finding of a breach of Mr Gatskiy’s right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention (see Ernestina Zullo v. Italy [GC], no. 64897/01, §§ 36-37, 29 March 2006 and Livada v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 21262/06, §§ 34-35, 26 June 2014).

9.  Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Sopina has standing to continue the proceedings in respect of application no. 53215/08 on behalf of the late applicant, Mr Gatskiy.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10.  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.”

11.  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).

12.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54-64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

13.  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.

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

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

15.  In applications nos. 10623/08, 53215/08 and 4032/16 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012 and Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, 2 March 2006).

VI.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

16.  In applications nos. 10623/08, 35259/08 and 53215/08 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

17.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VII.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  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.”

19.  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, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), as well as a period which it took certain applicants to apply to the Court, it considers reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

20.  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 application no. 55708/08 out of the list;

 

3.  Decides that the civil partner of the applicant (application no. 53215/08), Ms Sopina, has locus standi in the proceedings;

 

4.  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 nos. 10623/08, 35259/08 and 53215/08, inadmissible;

 

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

 

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

 

7.  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

 

8.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 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.	10623/08 12/02/2008	Nikolay Aleksandrovich Zhikhar 02/01/1975	Rozhkov Dmitriy Viktorovich Krasnoyarsk	IVS, IZ-24/1, IZ-24/6 and convoy premises in Krasnoyarsk region cell 134 12/10/2004 to 19/12/2007 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)	2.7 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food	Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detained since 12 October 2004 throughout the criminal proceedings until his final conviction 31 August 2007 by the trial court,   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - proceedings pending from 3 December 2002 until 15 November 2007	15,300
2.	35259/08 18/06/2008	Dmitriy Valeryevich Denisov 30/03/1967		Likhoslavlskyy IVS and IZ-69/1 Tver Region 25/05/2006 to 09/03/2008 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 14 day(s)       UZ-62/11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 31/03/2008 to 13/05/2016 8 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)	1,75 m²                 1,32 m²	overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air		25,000
3.	53215/08 29/08/2008	Aleksandr Anatolyevich Gatskiy 28/12/1962	Druzhkova Olga Strasbourg	YACH-91/8 Udmurtiya Republic 22/01/2005 to 15/12/2009 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 24 day(s)	1.5 m²	overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,000
4.	55708/08 06/10/2008	Vladimir Viktorovich Tupik 21/05/1972		UCH-398/15 Rostov Region 08/12/2007 to 15/04/2010 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s)				9,300
5.	29317/16 19/04/2016	Aleksandr Leonidovich Bazhenov 13/11/1978	Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma	IK-1, the Kostroma Region 01/09/2012 to 22/01/2016 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 22 day(s)	100 inmate(s) 0.6 m²	overcrowding, high humidity, insect infestation, cramped walking yard, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, insufficient hygiene facilities, poor food, inadequate working conditions, rodent infestation		5,000

 

 




---

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