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 SMETANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54500/18 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 Smetaninand 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 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. 54500/18, 56109/18, 653/19, 3169/19, 4499/19, 7066/19 and 29653/19, 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 sumsindicated 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. 54500/18, 56109/18, 653/19, 3169/19, 4499/19, 7066/19 and 29653/19 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.
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 |
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. | 54500/18
08/11/2018 |
Sergey Nikolayevich SMETANIN
1991 |
train / van
(IK-1 the Republic of Komi– FKLPUB‑18 Ukhta) 19/07/2018 to 19/07/2018
train / van (FKLPUB‑18 Ukhta– IK-1 the Republic of Komi) 17/09/2018 to 17/09/2018 |
0.35
0.35 |
overcrowding
overcrowding |
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 |
| 2. | 56109/18
06/11/2018 |
Leonid Leonidovich KIRSHOV
1948 |
van, train
11/09/2018 to 12/09/2018
van, train 01/10/2018 to 01/10/2018 |
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, passive smoking, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water,
overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 | |
| 3. | 653/19
22/02/2019 |
FedorAleksandrovich BRONNIKOV
1987 |
train
26/10/2018 to 28/10/2018 |
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to running water, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet | 1,000 | ||
| 4. | 1957/19
18/12/2018 |
Denis Sergeyevich KYZYUROV
1983 |
train, van, round trip
09/12/2018 to 13/12/2018 |
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, insufficient number of sleeping places
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport;
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction. The applicant complains about inadequate conditions of detention after conviction in IK-1 Komi Republic (27/09/2013 – pending), 2 sq. m per person, 210 inmates per brigade, 6 toilets, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell. |
13,500 | |
| 5. | 3169/19
17/12/2018 |
Yevgeniy Vasilyevich LIPIN
1979 |
train (Syktyvkar – Ukhta)
09/12/2018 to 10/12/2018
train (Ukhta – Syktyvkar) 19/12/2018 to 20/12/2018 |
0.45
0.45 |
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack or insufficient quantity of food, 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 |
| 6. | 4499/19
27/02/2019 |
ArazVidadiyevich ABDULLAYEV
1981 |
van, train
01/08/2018 to 04/09/2018 |
overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, scarce food
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport. | 1,000 | |
| 7. | 7066/19
09/01/2019 |
Yuriy Aleksandrovich MARKELOV
1987 |
train
27/09/2018 to 29/09/2018 |
insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, overcrowding | 1,000 | ||
| 8. | 29653/19
21/05/2019 |
Anton Yevgenyevich TITKIN
1976 |
transit cell, van, train
24/02/2019 to 25/02/2019 |
0.2 | insufficient number of sleeping places, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking | 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