53494/09;10862/16;53786/16;55263/16

THIRD SECTION         CASE OF ORUDZHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 53494/09 and 3 others ‑ see appended list)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   6 July 2017         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Orudzhov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Luis López Guerra, President,  Dmitry Dedov,  Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2017, 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. They 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 THE APPLICATION No. 53494/09 UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 53494/09 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 case (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, §§ 122‑41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012). 9.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54‑64, 12 November 2015, 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.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, § 106, 26 January 2016; Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 73, 26 February 2015; Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, § 191, 28 May 2014; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 80). V.  REMAINING COMPLAINT 13.  In application no. 55263/16 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 14.  The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  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.” 16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others, cited above, and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 17.  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. 53494/09 out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;   3.  Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 55263/16 inadmissible;   4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;   5.  Holds that there has been a violation 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 6 July 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Liv Tigerstedt Luis López Guerra 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]     53494/09 28/09/2009 Eldar Ramazan Ogly Orudzhov 04/09/1965 Boyev Dmitriy Alekseyevich Norilsk Norilsk temporary detention centre 29/09/2009 to 10/12/2010 1 year and 2 months and 12 day 1.75 m² poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - the applicant’s detention on 25 September 2009 was not recorded by the authorities; his detention from 28 September 2009 to 10 December 2010 for the purpose of administrative removal was based on a judicial decision which contained no reference to domestic provisions, did not establish the time limit       7,500     10862/16 08/07/2016 Oleg Yuryevich Bocharov 24/07/1981     IZ-47/1, Leningrad Region 28/06/2014 to 21/06/2016 1 year and 11 months and 25 days 2.5 m² lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, constant electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 8,000     53786/16 01/09/2016 Valeriy Vladimirovich Tashkin 04/08/1980     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 30/04/2014 to 06/04/2016 1 year and 11 months and 8 days   1.9 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 8,000     55263/16 07/09/2016 Khamzat Dokkayevich Khachukayev 03/02/1979 Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg IZ-1 St Petersburg 10/10/2014 to 01/09/2016 1 year and 10 months and 23 days 4 inmates 2 m² lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, high humidity, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 7,800     [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.