31274/19;36611/19;40643/19;45911/19;50325/19;53443/19;54414/19;57809/19;59375/19;10176/20;29163/20;40680/20;42927/20;43367/20;44184/20;51450/20;53883/20;7732/21;12919/21;14433/21;15172/21;18873/21;19094/21;33099/21;48423/21;49964/21;50628/21;52101/21;55105/21;59319/21;2925/22;4879/22;6753/22;16782/22;24223/22
WyrokETPCz2024-11-07ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:1107JUD003127419
Analiza orzeczenia
Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.
Zagadnienie prawne
Czy traktowanie więźniów uznanych za „wyrzutków” (outcast inmates) w rosyjskich zakładach karnych, polegające na segregacji, poniżających praktykach i zwiększonym ryzyku przemocy, stanowiło nieludzkie lub poniżające traktowanie w rozumieniu art. 3 Konwencji oraz czy brak skutecznych środków odwoławczych naruszył art. 13 Konwencji? Dodatkowo, czy stały nadzór wideo naruszył prawo do poszanowania życia prywatnego z art. 8 Konwencji?Ratio decidendi
Trybunał uznał, że fizyczna i symboliczna segregacja więźniów „wyrzutków”, ograniczony dostęp do podstawowych zasobów więziennych oraz odmowa kontaktu z ludźmi, powodowały cierpienie psychiczne przekraczające nieunikniony poziom cierpienia związany z pozbawieniem wolności, co stanowiło poniżające traktowanie. Stwierdzono, że władze krajowe nie podjęły odpowiednich kroków w celu ochrony skarżących ani nie wdrożyły skutecznych mechanizmów poprawy ich sytuacji. Ponadto, Trybunał uznał brak dostępu do skutecznego środka odwoławczego w prawie krajowym. W przypadku jednego skarżącego, stały nadzór wideo został uznany za naruszenie prawa do poszanowania życia prywatnego, zgodnie z ugruntowanym orzecznictwem.Stan faktyczny
Skarżący byli osadzonymi w rosyjskich zakładach karnych, gdzie byli traktowani jako „wyrzutki” (outcast inmates). Z tego powodu doświadczali segregacji, poniżających praktyk i nadużyć w codziennym życiu, a także byli narażeni na zwiększone ryzyko przemocy ze strony innych więźniów. Twierdzili, że władze nie podjęły działań w celu rozwiązania tego problemu, a w prawie krajowym brakowało skutecznych środków odwoławczych. Jeden ze skarżących dodatkowo skarżył się na stały nadzór wideo.Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednogłośnie: łączy skargi; stwierdza, że ma jurysdykcję do rozpatrzenia skarg; uznaje skargi za dopuszczalne; stwierdza naruszenie art. 3 i 13 Konwencji; stwierdza naruszenie Konwencji w odniesieniu do innych skarg podniesionych na podstawie ugruntowanego orzecznictwa Trybunału; zasądza od państwa pozwanego na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem szkody niemajątkowej oraz kosztów i wydatków.Pełny tekst orzeczenia
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MARO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31274/19 and 34 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maro and Others 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 10 October 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 dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian 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 that, as “outcast” inmates, they faced a risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention due to segregation, humiliating practices, and abuse in their daily lives while in detention. They highlighted the heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence due to prison hierarchy, the authorities’ failure to address that risk, and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicant in application no. 12919/21 raised other complaints under the Convention provisions.
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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained of inhuman and degrading treatment in Russian penal facilities due to their inferior position within an informal prisoner hierarchy and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies for their complaints in that regard. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
8. In the leading cases of S.P. and Others v. Russia (nos. 36463/11 and 10 others, 2 May 2023) and D v. Latvia (no. 76680/17, 11 January 2024), the Court already found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held that the physical and symbolic separation of “outcast” prisoners, coupled with restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact, caused mental anxiety exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even when they were not subjected to physical violence or threats of violence (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 96, and D v. Latvia, cited above, § 51). It also found that the domestic authorities had not taken adequate steps to protect the applicants from the treatment associated with their belonging to the stigmatised group or implemented effective mechanisms to improve their situation or address the issue comprehensively.
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. It finds that the applicants belonged to the stigmatised group of prisoners and endured degrading treatment on that account. They also did not have access to an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and Article 13 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant in application no. 12919/21 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 well-established case-law (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Regard being had to the material in its possession and to its case‑law (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 114), 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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention;
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 7 November 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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
(inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates as a result of segregation, humiliating practices and abuse in their daily life while in detention, heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
31274/19
23/05/2019
Rubens Aleksandrovich MARO
IK-2 Republic of Adygea
18/09/2017 - 24/01/2019
20,000
36611/19
05/07/2019
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich STETSIK
SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk;
SIZO-6 Krasnoyarsk Region;
IK-5 OIK-36 Krasnoyarsk Region;
IK-31 Krasnoyarsk;
IK-16 Gromadsk, Krasnoyarsk Region
29/01/2016 - 03/01/2022
20,000
40643/19
28/07/2020
Vladimir Mikhaylovich MARKIN
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
10/08/2009 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
45911/19
22/08/2019
Mikhail Petrovich LAPEYEV
IK-5 Mordovia Republic
28/02/2012 - 05/04/2019
20,000
50325/19
13/09/2019
Dmitriy Sergeyevich MARININ
IK-5 Kirov Region
15/03/2016 - 05/09/2019
20,000
53443/19
03/10/2019
Mikhail Alekseyevich RODENKO
IK-5 Republic of Mordovia
16/08/2016 - 09/04/2019
20,000
54414/19
26/12/2019
Sergey Valeryevich ZHILIN
SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk;
SIZO-3 Achinsk, Krasnoyarsk Region;
OIK-36 LIU-35;
IK-16 Gromadsk, Krasnoyarsk Region;
IK-5 OIK-36 Startsevo, Krasnoyarsk Region
03/07/2016 - 25/01/2022
20,000
57809/19
23/10/2019
Pavel Sergeyevich GOLUBEV
IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region;
IK-23 Krasnoyarsk Region;
KTB-1 Krasnoyarsk;
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
02/06/2017 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
59375/19
01/11/2019
Ivan Sergeyevich RUMYANTSEV
IK-1 Kostroma Region
26/04/2019 - 19/10/2021
20,000
10176/20
03/02/2020
Anton Veniaminovich SEREDKIN
IK-3 Irkutsk Region
20/02/2018 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
29163/20
16/10/2020
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SUVOROV
SIZO-6 Leningrad Region
01/03/2018 - 17/04/2020
20,000
40680/20
20/08/2020
Valeriy Sergeyevich PAVLICHENKO
FKU KP-14 Krasnoyarsk Region
28/11/2019 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
26,000
42927/20
24/09/2020
Vadim Vladimirovich FADEYEV Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA
Strasbourg
IK-9 Novgorod Region
18/11/2018 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
43367/20
01/09/2020
Bogdan Olegovich MATLIN Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-2 Kostroma Region
21/01/2019 - 04/03/2020
20,000
44184/20
19/09/2020
Aleksey Vladimirovich KUDRYASHOV Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma Region
25/12/2019 - 30/07/2020
20,000
51450/20
13/10/2020
Andrey Vladimirovich LOSEV Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma Region
26/07/2016 - 09/07/2020
20,000
53883/20
12/11/2020
Vladislav Sergeyevich KRASNOTSVETOV Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma Region
27/08/2019 - 24/07/2020
20,000
7732/21
13/01/2021
Aleksey Alekseyevich PRONENKO
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
20/11/2018 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
12919/21
05/02/2021
Vladimir Sergeyevich NEKHAYENKO
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
04/10/2019 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region, detention since 20/07/2018 - ongoing on the date of introduction of the application with the Court, opposite-sex operators,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
20,000
14433/21
11/02/2021
Aleksandr Ilyich EGADZE Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma Region
25/07/2017 - 22/12/2020
20,000
15172/21
17/02/2021
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich KIREYEV Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-4 Kostroma Region
07/04/2020 - 03/11/2020
20,000
18873/21
21/03/2021
Yuriy Mikhaylovich SOROKIN
IK-1 Komi Region
2013 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
19094/21
11/03/2021
Andrey Nikolayevich IVANOV Aleksandr Vladimirovich VINOGRADOV
Kostroma
IK-1 Kostroma Region
16/01/2019 - 22/09/2020
20,000
33099/21
11/06/2021
Andrey Aleksandrovich ALMAZOV
IK-3 Irkutsk Region
28/01/2019 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
48423/21
13/09/2021
Sergey Sergeyevich TOKMAKOV
IK-3 Irkutsk Region
29/11/2019 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
49964/21
15/09/2021
Anton Yuryevich PILISHEK
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
23/08/2021 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
50628/21
02/09/2021
Aleksey Mikhaylovich SALIKOV
SIZO Minusinsk, Krasnoyarsk Region;
IK-5 Startsevo, Krasnoyarsk Region;
KP-41 Irkutsk Region
12/09/2014 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
52101/21
06/10/2021
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KOZLOV
SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk;
Remand centre at IK-6 Krasnoyarsk;
IK-34 Startsevo, Krasnoyarsk Region;
KTB-1 Krasnoyarsk;
IK-27 Krasnoyarsk;
IK-5 Startsevo, Krasnoyarsk Region
13/07/2014 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
55105/21
11/01/2022
Georgiy Aleksandrovich POPKOV
IK-3 Fornosovo, Leningrad Region
13/05/2021 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
59319/21
02/02/2022
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich CHISTOV
IK-1 Mordovia Region
October 2021 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
2925/22
21/11/2021
Pavel Aleksandrovich MAKAROV
IK-3 Leningrad Region
2008 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
4879/22
21/12/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SAYBERT Nadezhda Valeryevna RADNAYEVA
Sofia
IK-3 Irkutsk Region
09/10/2011 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
6753/22
26/04/2022
Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich BURDYKO
FKU LIU-32 Krasnoyarsk Region
30/04/2021 - 30/12/2021
20,000
16782/22
09/02/2022
Yevgeniy Vitalyevich ZAKHAROV
FKU Krasnoyarsk Region
2017 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
24223/22
06/04/2022
Valentin Mikhaylovich YASINSKIY
IK-25 Komi Republic
24/11/2016 - at least until the date of introduction of the application before the Court
20,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 29.07.2026. · Źródło