9992/12;12214/13;54965/15;3330/16;19172/16;21267/16

THIRD SECTION           CASE OF SEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 9992/12 and 5 others -see appended list)                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   4 May 2017       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Serov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Luis López Guerra, President,  Dmitry Dedov,  Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 March 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 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.  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: “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, §§ 139‑65, 10 January 2012). 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, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145‑47 and 149). 8.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others, cited above, 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. 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.  In applications nos. 9992/12 and 3330/16, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-49, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pretrial detention) and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 100-19, 10 January 2012, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia). 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, to its case‑law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, 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 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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Karen Reid Luis López Guerra 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]     9992/12 14/02/2012 Aleksandr Vasilyevich Serov 02/09/1954 Visentin Mjriana Lainate IZ-2 Irkutsk 05/02/2011 to 28/10/2011 8 months and 24 days   20 inmates 1.2 m² 1 toilet     overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of beds in the cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, no hot/cold water, lack of (adequate) heating   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention 6,500     12214/13 28/01/2013 Vladimir Mikhaylovich Grechushkin 28/03/1977 Briceac Andrei Chisinau IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region 13/07/2010 to 28/01/2013 2 years and 6 months and 16 days   4.1 m²     overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease       5,000       54965/15 26/10/2015 Pavel Vladimirovich Gogolitsyn 05/07/1987     IZ 47/1 St Petersburg 20/07/2015 to 02/10/2015 2 months and 13 days   2.6 m²     lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air     5,000     3330/16 27/12/2015 Yuriy Vyacheslavovich Tikhonov 17/01/1967 Gordeyeva Margarita Vladimirovna Astrakhan IK-2 Astrakhan 10/02/2008 pending More than 8 years and 9 months and 26 days   165 inmates 1.33 m² 4 toilets     overcrowding, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (sufficient) natural light, insufficient number of beds in the cell, lack of (adequate) heating     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention 8,750     19172/16 23/03/2016 Arkadiy Viktorovich Fedotov 10/06/1987 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma 01/02/2010 to 13/11/2015 5 years and 9 months and 13 days   100 inmates 2 m²     lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, overcrowding, poor conditions of work - overcrowding, lack of light and 12 hours working day     5,000     21267/16 05/04/2016 Yuliya Yuryevna Tryapichnikova 13/10/1985 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-3 Kostroma Region 23/05/2006 to 04/03/2016 9 years and 9 months and 11 days   1.6 m²     overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of (adequate) heating, poor quality of food, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air, infestation of the cell with rats     5,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.