KLIMNENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 1532/13 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 504 (14 June 2018)

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KLIMNENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 1532/13 and 6 others -�

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 June 2018

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

In the case of Klimnenko and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 24 May 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 their detention. Some applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 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, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-�94, ECHR 2000-�XI, and 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 (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36-�40, 7 April 2005).

8. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, 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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of 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 Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 38-45.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. 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."

13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-�law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14. 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 applications admissible;

3. Holds that these applications 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 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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková

Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

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	Inmates per brigade 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]
	1532/13 12/11/2012	Dmitriy Vladimirovich Klimnenko 13/01/1975		IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 28/01/2011 to 10/08/2016 5 years and 6 months and 14 days	1.7 m²	overcrowding, inadequate temperature	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	16,300
	2808/17 19/12/2016	Denis Aleksandrovich Karakov 27/01/1982	Yesina Tatyana Robertovna Sevastopol	IK 56 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region 14/05/2010 pending More than 7 years and 10 months and 7 days		lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, use of pots instead of lavatory and the need to empty those pots once a day	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	9,000
	3645/17 19/12/2016	Igor Vladimirovich Vakolyuk 12/05/1971		IK-1 Arkhangelsk 20/06/2013 pending More than 4 years and 9 months and 1 day	180 inmates 1.7 m²	overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, no or restricted access to warm water		9,000
	5619/17 27/12/2016	Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Samotkanov 07/09/1962		IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region 05/09/2011 to 12/12/2016 5 years and 3 months and 8 days	135 inmates 2.3 m²	overcrowding, bunk beds, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, poor quality of food		5,000
	17313/17 15/02/2017	Andrey Vladimirovich Grekov 16/11/1977		IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 01/03/2007 to 30/04/2017 10 years and 2 months	1 m²	bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	5,800
	17586/17 17/02/2017	Pavel Valeryevich Skokan 21/02/1980		IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 18/12/2009 to 27/11/2017 7 years and 11 months and 10 days	1 m²	overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower	Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	7,500
	18305/17 22/02/2017	Andrey Nikolayevich Karpov 31/01/1970		IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 22/12/2014 pending More than 3 years and 2 months and 27 days	1.5 m²	lack of fresh air, passive smoking, bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities		8,300

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> KLIMNENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 1532/13 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 504 (14 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/504.html Cite as: [2018] ECHR 504, CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD000153213, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0614JUD000153213