Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF I.T. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18693/14 and 3 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of I.T. 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 6 October 2022,
Having regard to the decision to grant some of the applicants anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court,
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 under strict imprisonment regime.
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 3of the Convention
6. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime.They relied, expressly or in substance, 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 general principles regarding the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of deprivation of liberty, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of the Court’s previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-100, 20 October 2016, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
8. In the leading case of N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.
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’ rights were violated.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the applications 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.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, N.T., cited above, § 61), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
15. 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 under strict imprisonment regimeadmissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime;
4. 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 period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 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 under strict imprisonment regime)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Facility | Start and end date of detention under strict regime | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 18693/14
24/06/2014
|
I.T.
1986 |
Olga Vladimirovna Druzhkova
Moscow |
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region | 14/05/2009 –
03/09/2017 |
3,000 |
| 2. | 37882/15
22/10/2015
|
A.S.
1967 |
Marina Vladimirovna Makarova
Strasbourg |
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region,
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region |
11/12/2009 –
11/12/2019 |
3,000 |
| 3. | 29242/16
29/04/2016 |
Sergey Nikolayevich KALININ
1971 |
Tatyana RobertovnaYesina
Sevastopol |
IK-56 SverdlovskRegion;
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region |
22/08/2010 –
22/08/2020 |
3,000 |
| 4. | 5487/18
10/01/2018 |
Andrey Valeryevich POLICHEV
1988 |
Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova
Moscow |
IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region | 06/12/2015 – 01/02/2018 | 3,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply