Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicant complainedof the inadequate conditions of his detention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 23537/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shestakov 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 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 1 April 2019.
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 complainedof the inadequate conditions of his detention.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT PART OF THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. As regards the applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. IK-10, Sverdlovsk Region, from 24 March to 20 September 2016, the Russian Government (“the Government”) submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application.
6. The Government acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no. IK-10, Sverdlovsk Region, had not been in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention. They further acknowledged that the applicant had not had an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3 in contravention of Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
7. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
8. The applicant accepted the Government’s proposal.
9. The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
10. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application in the part covered by the friendly settlement.
11. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out this part of the application.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his on‑going detention in correctional colony no. IK-8, Bashkortostan. 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.”
13. The Court notes that the applicant has been kept in detention in poor conditions. 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 inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudła v. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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 were inadequate.
16. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.”
18. 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 sumindicated in the appended table in respect of its finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the present case.
19. 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 strike the application in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention, insofar as it relates to the conditions of detention in correctional colony no. IK-10, Sverdlovsk Region, out of its list of cases;
2. Declares the remaining part of the application admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of the applicant’s on‑going detention in correctional colony no. IK-8, Bashkortostan;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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
Application raising complaints under Article3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)
| 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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 23537/19
01/04/2019 |
Andrey Aleksandrovich SHESTAKOV
1990 |
IK-8 Bashkortostan
04/10/2016 – pending More than5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 14 day(s) |
1.5 m² | poor quality of food, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature | 4,500
(under the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government and accepted by the applicant) 8,000 (in respect of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention) |
[i]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply