18408/16;5555/17;20455/17;25282/17;33662/17;37208/17

THIRD SECTION         CASE OF KISELEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 18408/16 and 5 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 Kiselev 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 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 APPLICATION No. 25282/17 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  In application no. 25282/17 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration 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 the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI). III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:  “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.  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). 9.  In the leading case of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  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. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under 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 Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§100-119, concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about poor conditions of detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, pertaining to inadequate conditions of transport, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning applicants’ confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom. V.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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.” 14.  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, § 172, 10 January 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.  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. 25282/17 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;   3.  Declares the applications admissible;   4.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   5.  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);   6.  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 14 June 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy 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]     18408/16 05/07/2016 Pavel Mikhaylovich Kiselev 19/04/1984     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 30/03/2014 to 29/09/2016 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) 1,9 m² lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of requisite medical assistance, infestation of cell with insects/rodents   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in overcrowded prison van between 03/02/2016 and 25/03/2016,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 12,400     5555/17 27/12/2016 Aleksandr Arifullovich Arslanov 14/08/1977     IZ-11/1 Syktyvkar 18/07/2015 to 11/07/2016 11 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2.6-3 m²   overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     20455/17 01/03/2017 Vladimir Andreyevich Levchenko 16/09/1991     IZ-72/1 Tyumen Region 28/08/2015 to 01/09/2016 1 year(s) and 5 day(s) 1.2 m²   overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light, inadequate temperature, passive smoking   5,300     25282/17 07/03/2017 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Repshas 22/11/1991 Stasyuk Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 20/02/2015 to 08/12/2016 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 19 day(s) 2 m² lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack or inadequate furniture, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Metal cages in Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg at each hearing from 20/02/2015 to 10/10/2016,    Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 9,800     33662/17 16/04/2017 Rustam Olegovich Kabardokov 04/06/1988     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 30/03/2014 to 04/11/2016 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 m²   overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food   10,000     37208/17 11/05/2017 Vladimir Balzharovich Tsydenov 10/11/1992     IZ-1 Ulan-Ude 21/02/2015 to 12/11/2016 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 m² lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking, no ventilation, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of an individual sleeping place, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 7,300     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.