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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BAGEL v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 37810/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
November 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bagel v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr L. Loucaides, President,
Mrs N.
Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E.
Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 37810/03) 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 a Russian national, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich
Bagel (“the applicant”), on 10 October 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr M. Mereshchak, a lawyer
practising in Barnaul. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
30 September 2005 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
- The
Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and
merits of the application. Having considered the Government's
objection, the Court dismissed it.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Barnaul.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On 12 October and 15 December 1999 and on 4 February
2000 the applicant was charged with unlawful business activities, tax
evasion and fraud, respectively. Three criminal cases against the
applicant were initiated.
- On
4 February 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody.
- On
9 August 2000 the three criminal cases against the applicant were
joined.
- From
10 December 1999 to 15 March 2001 the prosecutor's office of the
Tsentralnyy District of Barnaul extended the preliminary
investigation seven times in view of the complexity of the case.
- On
29 June 2001 the bill of indictment against the applicant was issued.
- On
17 September 2001 the case was transmitted to the Tsentralniy
District Court of Barnaul.
- On
6 March 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul convicted the
applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment.
- On
15 May 2003 the Altayskiy Regional Court commuted the term of
imprisonment to three years and ten months and upheld the remainder
of the judgment.
- The applicant was released on 23 May 2003.
B. Conditions of the applicant's detention
1. Detention from 4 to 20 February 2000
- Following his arrest on 4 February 2000 the applicant
was detained in a temporary detention centre in Barnaul (Изолятор
временного
содержания
г. Барнаула).
Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to the pre-trial detention
centre no. IZ-17/1.
In
the course of the preliminary investigation the applicant was
returned to the temporary detention centre several times in order to
participate in investigative measures. The applicant submitted, and
the Government did not dispute, that he had spent seventy-nine days
in total in the temporary detention centre. The parties did not
specify the dates when the transfers to the temporary detention
centre had taken place.
- It
is clear that from 4 to 20 February 2000 the applicant was held in
the temporary detention centre in a cell measuring 20 sq. m. The
applicant submitted that he shared the cell with thirty inmates, that
there had been no beds in the cell and that the inmates had to sleep
on the floor.
- According to the Government, the exact number of
detainees per cell could not be established because the registers had
since been destroyed. The Government also submitted that the
applicant's cell had been equipped with beds.
2. Detention from 21 February 2000 to 23 May 2003
- From 21 February 2000 to 23 May 2003 the applicant was
held in the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul.
- The
parties submitted the following information concerning the cells
where the applicant had been held.
(a) Measurements of the cells and number
of inmates per cell
(i) Cell no. 208
- Relying on a certificate issued on 18 November 2005 by
the pre-trial detention centre governor, the Government submitted
that the applicant had been held in cell no. 208 from 21
February 2000 to 17 March 2000 and from 23 March 2000 to 15 June
2000. The cell measured 24.5 sq. m; was equipped with six beds and
accommodated up to seven inmates. According to the certificate, at
that time the pre-trial detention centre, which is designed to
accommodate 1,135 persons, housed 2,600 to 2,790 inmates.
- The applicant submitted that the cell measured 12 sq.
m and had been severely overcrowded.
(ii) Cell no. 205
- The
Government submitted that from 15 June 2000 to 25 July 2000 the
applicant had been held in cell no. 205. The cell measured 32.1
sq. m; it was equipped with eight beds and accommodated up to nine
inmates. According to the same certificate, at the material time the
detention centre housed 2,600 to 2,750 inmates.
- The applicant submitted that the cell measured 16 sq.
m and had been severely overcrowded.
(iii) Cell no. 221
- The
Government submitted that from 25 July 2000 to 25 March 2001 the
applicant had been held in cell no. 221. The cell measured
24.1 sq. m; it was equipped with six beds and accommodated
up to six inmates. According to the same certificate, at the material
time the detention centre housed 1,900 to 2,320 inmates.
- The applicant submitted that the cell measured 11 sq.
m and had been overcrowded.
(iv) Cell no. 194
- The
Government submitted that from 25 March 2001 to 11 April 2001 the
applicant had been held in cell no. 194. The cell measured 24.1
sq. m; it was equipped with six beds and accommodated up to six
inmates. According to the same certificate, at the material time the
detention centre housed 1,900 to 1,980 inmates.
- The applicant submitted that the cell measured 10 sq.
m and had been overcrowded.
(v) Cell no. 192
- The Government submitted that from 11 April 2001 to 14
March 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no. 192. The cell
measured 24.8 sq. m; it was equipped with six beds and accommodated
up to six inmates. According to the same certificate, at the material
time the detention centre housed 1,470 to 1,980 inmates.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government, claiming that during the two
years of his stay in cell no. 192 it had accommodated up to
twelve inmates. As a result, inmates had to take turns to sleep or
slept on the concrete floor. He submitted written statements by four
of his former cellmates, according to which cell no. 192
measured 11 sq. m and had been severely overcrowded.
(vi) Cell no. 128
- The Government submitted that from 14 April 2003 to 20
May 2003 the applicant had been held in cell no. 128. The cell
measured 120.2 sq. m; it was equipped with thirty beds and
accommodated up to twenty-seven inmates. According to the same
certificate, at the material time the detention centre housed 1,400
to 1,470 inmates.
- The applicant submitted that the cell measured 100 sq.
m. He did not comment on the number of inmates in the cell.
(b) Sanitary conditions in the cells and
the freedom of movement enjoyed by the applicant
- Relying
on the certificate issued on 18 November 2005 by the detention centre
governor, the Government submitted that the conditions in all of the
cells had been satisfactory. In particular, the cells had been
equipped with a lavatory pan separated from the living area and the
cell windows had not been covered with metal shutters. The
certificate did not describe the state of the cells during the period
of the applicant's detention from 21 February 2000 to 23 May
2003.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had been allowed one-hour
daily walks in the courtyard.
- The
applicant submitted that a lavatory pan had not been separated from
the living area and offered no privacy; it had been located within
0.5 or 1 metre from the dining table. The cell windows were covered
with metal shutters and let no air through. There was no ventilation
in the cells.
- The
applicant pointed out that the sanitary conditions in cell no. 128
had been satisfactory.
(c) The applicant's placement in solitary
confinement cell no. 3
- From
17 to 23 March 2000 the applicant was held in solitary cell no. 3
on suspicion of having the HIV virus. The applicant submitted that
the cell had been a punishment cell, located in the basement with no
access to daylight or fresh air. He also submitted that he had not
been given food for the first three days of his stay in that cell
because he had not been provided with any cutlery or tableware by the
detention centre administration. According to the certificate of 18
November 2005 issued by the detention centre governor and submitted
by the Government, cell no. 3 was a solitary confinement cell
rather than a punishment cell. The Government also submitted
documents showing that the cell had a window and that the applicant
had been provided in good time with cutlery, tableware and other
necessary items.
(d) Medical assistance provided to the
applicant
- The
applicant submitted that during the period of his detention his spine
had hurt but he had been refused medical assistance. The Government
provided the Court with the applicant's medical file, according to
which the applicant had received treatment for spinal osteochondrosis
at the detention centre's medical unit.
3. Conditions of the applicant's transport
- The
applicant was transported from the pre-trial detention centre to the
courthouse on 145 occasions, the last time on 15 May 2003. He offered
the following description of the days of transport.
- On
the days of the hearings he had been woken up at 5 a.m. At about
6 a.m. he had been taken from his cell to the so-called
“assembly” cell, together with other detainees who had a
hearing on that day.
- The
applicant had not normally arrived back at the prison until 7.30 p.m.
and had been held in the “assembly” cell until 10 or 11
p.m. During the day he had received no food or outdoor exercise and
had often missed the weekly shower.
- The
Government submitted that on the days of transport the applicant had
been woken at 6 a.m. and taken to the court in the prison van. He
would normally come back to the prison no later than 8 p.m. According
to the certificate of 18 November 2005 issued by the detention centre
governor, on the days of transport the applicant had been fed in the
morning and had been given a packed meal in accordance with the order
of the Ministry of Justice of 4 February 2004.
- The
applicant pointed out that the detention centre administration had
started to give packed meals to detainees after 4 February 2004 when
the respective order was adopted by the Ministry of Justice, whereas
he had been released on 23 May 2003.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Section 22 of the Detention of
Suspects Act (Federal Law no. 103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides that
detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in
good health according to standards established by the Government.
Section 23 provides that detainees should be held in conditions which
meet sanitary and hygienic requirements. They should be provided with
an individual sleeping place and given bedding, tableware, cutlery
and toiletries. Each inmate should have no less than four square
metres of personal space in his or her cell.
- Annex 3 to the Order of the
Ministry of Justice of 4 May 2001 no. 136 (as amended on 4
February 2004) set detailed daily standards for free food, including
packed meals, which were given to detainees at the material time.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the
temporary detention centre in Barnaul and in the pre-trial detention
centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul amounted to
inhuman and degrading treatment in violation 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. Admissibility
1. The applicant's detention in the temporary detention
centre in Barnaul
- The Court notes that the applicant was held in the
temporary detention centre in Barnaul between 4 and 20 February 2000.
On the latter date he was transferred to pre-trial detention centre
no.IZ-17/1 in Barnaul. It also appears that the applicant was brought
back to the temporary centre on several occasions thereafter.
However, neither party specified the exact dates. In any event, the
Court notes that the applicant was taken to the temporary detention
centre for the purposes of the investigation into his case (see
paragraph 15 above). His most recent stay there would therefore have
been before 6 March 2003 when the judgment in the applicant's
case was pronounced, that is, more than six months before the
application was lodged with the Court.
- It
follows that this part of the complaint has been introduced out of
time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§
1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant's detention in pre-trial detention
centre no. 1Z-17/1 in Barnaul
(a) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
- The Government argued that the applicant had not
exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he
had not complained about the conditions of his detention to a
prosecutor's office or to a court.
- The
applicant submitted that he had unsuccessfully complained about the
appalling conditions of his detention to various domestic
authorities, including courts and prosecutor's offices. He had never
received any reply.
- The
Court observes that it has already on a number of occasions examined
the same objection by the Russian Government and dismissed it. In
particular, the Court held that the Government had not demonstrated
what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a
prosecutor, a court or other State agency, taking into account that
the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention
were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the
applicant's personal situation (see Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.),
no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.),
no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001 and Mamedova v. Russia,
no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006). The Court sees no reason
to depart from that finding in the present case and therefore
considers that this part of the application cannot be rejected for a
failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
- The
Court observes that the remainder of the applicant's complaints under
Article 3 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not
inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The parties disputed the actual conditions of the
applicant's detention in pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in
Barnaul. In particular, the applicant and the respondent Government
submitted differing measurements of the surface and differing
information on the number of inmates per cell. However, in the
present case the Court does not consider it necessary to establish
the truthfulness of each and every allegation of the parties, because
it may find a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that
have been presented or are undisputed by the respondent Government,
for the following reasons.
- As
regards the cells' surface area, from the figures submitted by the
Government it appears that for approximately two years and three
months of the applicant's detention in pre-trial detention centre no.
IZ-17/1 in Barnaul, at any given time there was 3.5 to 4 sq. m of
space per inmate in the applicant's cell.
- The Court recalls that in the Peers case a cell
of 7 sq. m for two inmates was noted as a relevant aspect in finding
a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was
coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see
Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70–72,
ECHR 2001-III).
- By contrast, in some other cases no violation of
Article 3 was found as the restricted space in the sleeping
facilities had been compensated for by the freedom of movement
enjoyed by detainees during the daytime (see Valašinas v.
Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103, 107, ECHR
2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia
(dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004). According to the
parties, the applicant was only afforded a one-hour daily walk
outside the cell and only on the days when there was no court
hearing. Accordingly, for approximately two years and three months
the applicant was confined to the cell for twenty-three hours a day.
- As
regards the issue of overcrowding, the Government submitted that the
intended capacity of cells nos. 205 and 208 had been exceeded by
one person. The applicant, however, submitted that the overcrowding
of the cells had been severe. The Court notes that the parties agreed
in principle that cells nos. 208 and 205 accommodated more
detainees than they had beds.
- As
regards cells nos. 3, 128, 192, 194 and 221, the Government
submitted that this cell had not been overcrowded. The applicant,
however, submitted that the intended capacity of the cells had been
significantly exceeded. There was enough beds in the cells; as a
result, inmates had to sleep in shifts.
- The Court relies on a number of
principles that have been developed in its case-law when it is faced
with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree. As
to the facts in dispute, the Court recalls its jurisprudence
confirming the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”
in its assessment of evidence (see Avşar
v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282,
ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)). Such proof may follow from the coexistence
of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar
unrebutted presumptions of fact.
- Turning
to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court observes that,
according to the applicant's submissions, cell
no. 192, which was designed to house six persons, at times had
accommodated up to twelve inmates. The applicant produced
witness statements by four of his former cellmates according
to which the number of inmates in cell no. 192 had at all times
exceeded the number of beds thereby compelling inmates to sleep in
shifts.
- The
Court further observes that the certificate from the governor of
18 November 2005 acknowledged that during the period of the
applicant's detention the intended capacity of the detention centre
was at times exceeded by 30 to 150 per cent (see paragraphs 20 - 30
above). The Court finds it striking that, while the centre was
severely overcrowded, there should have been no overcrowding in the
cells where the applicant was held.
- Having
regard to statements by the applicant's former cellmates and the
above-mentioned certificate from the governor, the Court finds it
established that cells nos. 3, 128, 192, 194 and 221 had been
overcrowded at the material time.
- Irrespective
of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court considers that it is
incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary
system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of
detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see
Mamedova, cited above, § 63).
- The
Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
in similar cases on account of a lack of personal space afforded to
detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104
et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no.
62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov
v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June
2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39
et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia,
no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers,
cited above, §§ 69 et seq.).
- The Court notes that the
applicant's situation was further exacerbated by the fact that he was
not provided with bedding and had to sleep on the concrete floor
while suffering from osteochondrosis. Although the illness in
itself does not imply a violation of Article 3, given, in particular,
that the applicant received medical treatment (see Alver v.
Estonia, no. 64812/01, § 54, 8 November 2005), the
Court considers that this aspect is relevant in addition to the focal
factor of the overcrowding, to show that the conditions of the
applicant's detention went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article
3 of the Convention (compare Novoselov, cited above,
§ 44).
- The
Court considers that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention on
account of the conditions of his detention in the pre-trial detention
centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul.
2. The conditions of transport
- The
Court has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention
in a Russian case where the applicant was transported in an
overcrowded prison van (see Khudoyorov,
cited above, §§ 112-20).
- In the instant case the applicant's complaint under
Article 3 concerns a different aspect of transport. He complains
about the failure of the detention centre administration to provide
him with a packed meal on the days of the trial and insufficient time
to sleep on the days of transport.
- The Court observes that the journey to the courthouse
started approximately three hours after the applicant was woken-up.
Before the departure the applicant was able to have breakfast.
Neither party indicated how long the actual journey to the courthouse
had taken or how many inmates had to share the prison van. It further
appears that in most cases the applicant arrived back at the
detention centre in time for the evening meal.
- The Court notes that, according
to the certificate issued by the detention centre governor dated 18
November 2005, on the days of his transport to the court the
applicant had been given a packed meal in accordance with the
provisions of Russian law effective at the material time. The Court
further notes that during the period of the applicant's detention
standards for packed meals were set by the order of the Ministry of
Justice of 4 May 2001 no. 136 (see paragraph 44 above). The
applicant's reference to the gap in legislation concerning packed
meals during the period of his detention is therefore
unsubstantiated.
- As
regards the lack of sleep, it appears from the submissions of the
parties that the applicant was able to sleep at least from 11 p.m. to
5 a.m. each night and was not subjected to any deprivation of sleep
during the period of his detention. The impugned treatment therefore
did not attain a minimum level of severity sufficient to bring
the complaint within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.
- Accordingly,
there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account
of the applicant's conditions of transport.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 (c) OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Article 5 §
1 (c) that his detention had been unlawful.
- The Court observes that it is not required to decide
whether or not the applicant's complaints concerning his pre-trial
detention disclose an appearance of a violation of Article 5 § 1
(c) of the Convention. It reiterates that, according to Article 35 of
the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter within a
period of six months from the date on which the final decision was
taken. It observes that the applicant's detention ended on 6 March
2003 when the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul convicted him
(see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147,
ECHR 2000-IV). The applicant introduced his application on 10 October
2003, which is more than six months after his detention had ended.
- It
follows that this part of the application was lodged out of time and
must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4
of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 about the excessive
length of the criminal proceedings against him.
- The
Court notes that the criminal proceedings in
the applicant's case lasted three years, seven months and three days.
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the
proceedings is to be assessed in the light of the particular
circumstances of the case, regard being had to the criteria laid down
in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and that of the authorities before which
the case was brought (cf. Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II, §
67).
- The
Court notes that the applicant himself does not appear to have
contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Court further notes
that the criminal case against the applicant was complex. It
initially concerned three criminal charges, which were subsequently
joined in one criminal case. The prosecutor's office extended the
preliminary investigation several times in order for the
investigation to gather evidence in all the episodes of the case.
These extensions appear neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. After the
preliminary investigation was completed, the case was pending before
the trial court and the court of appeal for one year, seven months
and twenty seven days. During that time the Court observes no
substantial periods of the courts' inactivity. On the contrary, the
hearings were held and the decisions were taken at regular intervals
by the first instance and on appeal. The Court concludes that the
period of three years and seven months when the judicial authorities
were constantly dealing with the case does not as such offend the
guarantees of Article 6 § 1.
- Having
regard to the above, the Court concludes that the length of the
criminal proceedings in the present case did not exceed the
“reasonable time” set out in Article 6 § 1
of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must
be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- 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.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed 21,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing the loss of earnings during the period
of his detention and purchase price of food parcels brought by
members of his family to the detention centre and EUR 3,100,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's claims for pecuniary damage
were unsubstantiated. They also contended that a finding of a
violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the
non-pecuniary damage in the present case.
- The
Court considers that the applicant has failed to substantiate any
causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage
alleged; it therefore rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary
damage. However, the Court accepts that the applicant suffered
humiliation and distress because of the inhuman conditions of his
detention. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, having regard
to its case-law on the subject and taking into account, in
particular, the length of the applicant's detention, the Court awards
the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating
to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Convention
organs and this is not a matter which the Court has to examine of its
own motion (see Motière v.
France, no. 39615/98, § 26,
5 December 2000).
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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
- Declares the complaints concerning the
applicant's detention in the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1
of Barnaul and the conditions of his transport admissible and the
remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's
detention the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 of Barnaul;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's conditions
of transport;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Loukis
Loucaides
Registrar President
