20693/19;39300/19

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHUSHKIN AND LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 20693/19 and 39300/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shushkin and Lebedev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Ioannis Ktistakis, President,  Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,  Diana Kovatcheva, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2024, 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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 detention during their transport. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. Jurisdiction 6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.  The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding cramped and defective conditions during the transit of prisoners (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 124-27, 9 April 2019). It reiterates, in particular, that a strong presumption of a violation arises when detainees are transported in conveyances offering less than 0.5 square metres of space per person, regardless of whether such cramped conditions result from an excessive number of detainees being transported together or from the restrictive design of compartments (ibid., § 125). As regards longer journeys, factors such as a failure to arrange an individual sleeping place for each detainee or to secure an adequate supply of drinking water and food or access to the toilet seriously aggravate the situation of prisoners during transfers and are indicative of a violation of Article 3 (ibid., § 127). 9.  In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others (cited above), 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 during their transport were inadequate. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 143-56, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of transport. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); 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 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis  Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Means of transport Start and end date 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]       20693/19 26/07/2019 Yegor Vladimirovich SHUSHKIN van, transit cell 17/03/2018 to 26/07/2019 <0.3 m²   no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000     39300/19 12/07/2019 Aleksey Anatolyevich LEBEDEV train, van 16/01/2019 to 29/01/2019 0.3 m²   insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.