Last Updated on October 13, 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 STUGAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 72087/17 and 11 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 Stugarev and 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, ActingDeputy 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 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’ transport 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, §§ 118‑120, 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 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 Muršićv. 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 cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012 and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019 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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport, and Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 72087/17, 4221/18, 12818/18, 40770/18, 46549/18, 48035/18, 6642/19, 11254/19, 29178/19, 48474/19 and 26825/20, 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.
14. The Court further observes that in view of the findings in paragraphs 6-11, it has already examined the main legal issues of the case and does not consider it necessary to examine the remainder of Mr Starchenko’s submissions as regards the conditions of his post-conviction detention from 5 August 2017 to 2 August 2020(application no. 50196/18).
V. 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.
17. 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,decides that it is not necessary to examine the remainder of Mr Starchenko’s submissions as regards the conditions of his post‑conviction detention from 5 August 2017 to 2 August 2020(application no. 50196/18) and dismisses the remainder of the applications nos. 72087/17, 4221/18, 12818/18, 40770/18, 46549/18, 48035/18, 6642/19, 11254/19, 29178/19, 48474/19 and 26825/20 as 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
ViktoriyaMaradudina 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. | 72087/17
22/01/2018 |
Anton Mikhaylovich STUGAREV
1984 |
Yevgeniy ViktorovichKuznetsov St Peterburg |
van
16/03/2017 to 24/10/2017 |
0.32 m²
|
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding, lack of individual places during transportation, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking | 1,000 | |
| 2. | 4221/18
18/12/2017 |
Aleksey Vyacheslavovich DUBOVENKO
1982 |
|
train
12/08/2017 to 13/08/2017 |
overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature
|
1,000 | ||
| 3. | 12818/18
15/02/2018 |
Andrey Sergeyevich PODSHIVALOV
1988 |
|
train
04/09/2017 to25/09/2017 |
0.4 m²
|
overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of fresh air | 1,000 | |
| 4. | 40770/18
31/07/2018 |
Nikolay Vasilyevich CHIGIRINSKIKH
1983 |
|
train
19/02/2018 to 09/04/2018 |
transport from IK-56 in Sverdlovsk Region to a colony in Khabarovsk during 50 days; detention in transit facilities; severe overcrowding, restricted access to toilet; poor quality of food and scarce food; inadequate temperature | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 | |
| 5. | 46549/18
10/09/2018 |
Sergey Ivanovich NOVIKOV
1972 |
|
train 11/07/2018 to 07/08/2018van 05/03/2019 to 05/03/2019 |
0.3 m²
|
passive smoking,no or restricted access to toilet,no or restricted access to potable water,overcrowding,insufficient number of sleeping places
no or restricted access to toilet,no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding,passive smoking |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – The applicant complains about inadequate conditions of detention after conviction in IK-1 Komi Republic (01/05/2013 – pending) raising 1.9 m2 of personal space, lack or inadequate furniture, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, small courtyard, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food. |
13,500 |
| 6. | 48035/18
01/10/2018 |
Vladimir Viktorovich ILYIN
1963 |
|
train, van
03/07/2018 to 23/07/2018 van, train 23/11/2018 to 24/11/2018 van, train, transit cell 07/12/2018 to 07/12/2018 |
0.4 m² | inadequate temperature, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water
overcrowding, passive smoking, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
| 7. | 50196/18
15/10/2018 |
Maksim Fedorovich STARCHENKO
1985 |
|
train
19/09/2018 to20/09/2018 |
0.4 m2 | overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
| 8. | 6642/19
10/01/2019 |
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BOLDYREV
1987 |
|
train
15/11/2018 to 07/12/2018 |
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention;
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – IK-25 Komi Republic, 01/12/2018 – pending, 1.3 m² of personal space, overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature. |
13,500 | |
| 9. | 11254/19
02/04/2019 |
Pavel Vasilyevich KUCHMASOV
1987 |
|
train, van
17/12/2018 to 28/01/2019 |
0.3-0.4 m² | insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet | 1,000 | |
| 10. | 29178/19
01/05/2019 |
Igor Konstantinovich CHERNOGOROV
1986 |
|
train (Ufa- Ryazan)
14/01/2019 to 15/01/2019 |
0.3 m2 | insufficient number of sleeping places
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
| 11. | 48474/19
22/08/2019 |
Mikhail Alekseyevich SOPILOV
1994 |
|
train (Arkhangelsk – Vologda – Sosnogorsk – Vorkuta)
25/06/2019 to 13/07/2019 |
insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 | |
| 12. | 26825/20
10/04/2020 |
Ivan Viktorovich ANASHKIN
1983 |
|
train
09/12/2019 to 10/12/2019 train 29/12/2019 to 29/12/2019 |
0,5 m²
0,5 m² |
overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air
insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply