Last Updated on September 15, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BOBRYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 21205/12 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bobryshev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
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. 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 detention during their transport. 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 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 in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118‑20, ECHR 2005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53‑60, 31 July 2008). 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 Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122‑41, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).
8. In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑08, 22 May 2012, 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 during their transport were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In applications nos. 2634/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given 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 well-established case-law (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 143-56, 9 April 2019, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about poor conditions of transport; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees in penitentiary facilities).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. The Court further 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 complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 21205/12, 2634/17, 66813/17, 79064/17 and 15294/18 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
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 the 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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 |
Representative’s name and location | 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)[i] |
| 1. | 21205/12 09/04/2012 |
Stanislav Vasilyevich BOBRYSHEV 1978 |
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow |
train 29/09/2011 – 15/10/2011 train 20/11/2011 – 06/12/2011 |
2.4 m² 2.4 m² |
lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no ventilation, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no ventilation, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet |
1,000 | |
| 2. | 2634/17 13/12/2016 |
Ivan Aleksandrovich MOROZOV 1984 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg |
van 03/08/2015 – 05/07/2016 |
0.25 m² | inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of or insufficient natural light | Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – permanent video surveillance by opposite-sex operators, 08/08/2016 – 14/08/2016, IZ‑66/1 Yekaterinburg. | 1,000 |
| 3. | 66813/17 21/08/2017 |
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich KOVALEV 1979 |
train 25/04/2017 – 26/04/2017 train 23/05/2017 – 24/05/2017 |
0.5 m² 0.5 m² |
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack or insufficient quantity of food overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, insufficient number of sleeping places |
1,000 | ||
| 4. | 79064/17 08/11/2017 |
Umrbek Durdiyevich IBRAGIMOV 1992 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg |
van, train, 03/09/2017 – 26/09/2017 | 0.5 m² | van: no access to toilet, no electric or natural light, train: restricted access to toilet (2-3 times per day), lack of privacy for toilet (under the guards’ watch) |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
| 5. | 15294/18 03/03/2018 |
Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV 1986 |
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg |
van, train 03/09/2017 – 26/09/2017 |
0.5 m² | van: no access to toilet, no electric or natural light, train: restricted access to toilet (2-3 times per day), lack of privacy for toilet (under the guards’ watch) |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room in IZ-1 Irkutsk. |
1,000 |
| 6. | 18620/18 09/04/2018 |
Mark Aleksandrovich BRONOVSKIY 1979 |
Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich St Petersburg |
van, transit cell, numerous occasions of transport from the detention facility or prison hospital to take part in investigative actions or court hearings in the indicated period 26/01/2017 – 09/04/2018 |
0.2 m² | no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no food, passive smoking, lack of fresh air | 1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply