Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complainedof the inadequate conditions of their detention.In application no. 23384/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BAKANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 61929/17 and 7 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bakanovand Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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 complainedof the inadequate conditions of their detention.In application no. 23384/18, the applicant also raised a complaint 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 on-going post-conviction 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 have been 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, Kudłav. 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 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 conditions of the applicants’ on-going detention in post-conviction facilities 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 application no. 23384/18 the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention. 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 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;
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 13 October 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 after conviction)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Facility
Start and end date Duration |
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)[i] |
| 1. | 61929/17
06/02/2018 |
Aleksandr Alekseyevich BAKANOV
1977 |
IK-5 Mordovia Republic
26/09/2016 – pending More than 5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 17 day(s) |
45 inmate(s)
1 m²
|
lack of fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food | 12,500 | |
| 2. | 5532/18
25/12/2017 |
Aleksey Anatolyevich KULESHOV
1977 |
IK-11 Nizhny Novgorod Region
04/12/2017 – pending More than 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
135 inmate(s)
1.2 m² 6 toilet(s) |
lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water | 12,500 | |
| 3. | 7445/18
22/01/2018 |
Kazbek Taymurazovich DZEBISOV
1975 |
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
17/08/2015 – pending More than 6 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 26 day(s) |
1.2 m² | lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities | 12,500 | |
| 4. | 9418/18
29/01/2018 |
Sergey Sergeyevich PARFENOV
1980 |
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
02/04/2012 – pending More than 10 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s) |
130 inmate(s)
1.2 m² |
no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to shower, infestation of cell with insects/rodents | 12,500 | |
| 5. | 12316/18
17/04/2018 |
Aleksandr Vladimirovich SALOMATOV
1961 |
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region
18/12/2011 – pending More than 10 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 25 day(s) |
1.5 m² | overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of privacy for toilet | 12,500 | |
| 6. | 13735/18
27/04/2018 |
VasiliyValentinovich NIKULIN
1986 |
IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region
20/05/2011– pending More than 8 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s) |
80 inmate(s)
1 m² |
lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food | 12,500 | |
| 7. | 23384/18
27/04/2018 |
Aslan Makharbekovich BOLOTAYEV
1987 |
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
06/04/2017 – pending More than 5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 6 day(s) |
45 inmate(s)
1.6 m² |
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, poor quality of food | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention | 12,500 |
| 8. | 31750/18
17/06/2018 |
Vladimir Alekseyevich STEPANOV
1971 |
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
04/05/2010 – pending More than 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s) |
169 inmate(s)
1.6 m² 7 toilet(s) |
overcrowding, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water | 12,500 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply