Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF PIDGURSKIY v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 53624/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pidgurskiy 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 ViktoriyaMaradudina,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 an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 October 2018.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He 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.”
6. The Court notes that the applicant was detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicant’s 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, §§ 118‑120, 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, §§ 122‑141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑159, 10 January 2012).
7. 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.
8. 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 applicant’s conditions of detention during his transport were inadequate.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
11. The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. 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, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum 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. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport admissible and the remainder of the applicationinadmissible;
2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Means of transport
Start and end date |
Sq. m per inmate | Specific grievances | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 53624/18
23/10/2018 |
ValeriyPetrovich PIDGURSKIY
1994 |
transit cell, train, van
16/08/2018 – 10/09/2018 |
0.3 m² | inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to toilet, numerous occasions of transport, lack or insufficient quantity of food | 1,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply