62980/10;57534/16;60594/16;61095/16;65741/16;1023/17;1996/17

THIRD SECTION             CASE OF MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application nos. 62980/10 and 6 others – see appended list)                           JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 20 November 2017 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     STRASBOURG   9 November 2017     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Medvedev 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 19 October 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. 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.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.  Some applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of 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 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 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 9 November 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 Number of inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade 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]     62980/10 04/10/2010 Pavel Romanovich Medvedev 04/07/1976     IK-20 (УЗ 62/20) 12/03/2010 pending More than 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s) 51 inmate(s) 1.4 m² 7 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease   24,800     57534/16 21/09/2016 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Kovalev 09/05/1979     IK-4 Arkhangelsk Region 01/01/2008 pending More than 9 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 28 day(s) 120 inmate(s) 1.5 m² lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, bunk beds, no or restricted access to shower, lack of requisite medical assistance, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 8,300     60594/16 07/10/2016 Andrey Nikolayevich Smorodin 21/04/1981 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma 11/08/2015 pending More than 2 year(s) and 1 month and 18 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 2 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food   8,000     61095/16 28/09/2016 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Radchenko 25/02/1965     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 10/06/2010 to 26/07/2016 6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)   140 inmate(s) 2.3-2.5 m² 6 toilet(s) overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, bunk beds   5,000     65741/16 08/09/2016 Azat Zaydyatovich Shaydullov 25/11/1967     IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 11/12/2009 pending More than 7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s) 1.9 m² lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, forced labour, usage of handcuffs Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 8,300     1023/17 14/12/2016 Dmitriy Viktorovich Kuznetsov[2] 28/09/1984 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-12, Vologda Region 03/05/2012 to 19/08/2016 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1,5 m² overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 5,000     1996/17 24/12/2016 Sergey Nikolayevich Kurochkin 15/05/1978 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma 12/05/2016 to 13/12/2016 7 month(s) and 2 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 1.7 m² mouldy or dirty cell, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - 3,600     [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2].  Rectified on 20 November 2017: the text was "Mr Aleksey Viktorovich Kuznetsov”.