Last Updated on October 27, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of restrictions on family visits and telephone calls under Article 8 of the Convention. Under Article 3 of the Convention Mr O. Limarev also complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention under strict imprisonment regime and under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 about impossibility to participate in elections.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LIMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15812/16 and 9874/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Limarev 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, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6October 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. Mr M. Limarev and Mrs V. Limareva are parents of Mr O. Limarev, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and is detained in a correctional colony.
4. The applicants complained of restrictions on family visits and telephone calls under Article 8 of the Convention. Under Article 3 of the Convention Mr O. Limarev also complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention under strict imprisonment regime and under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 about impossibility to participate in elections.
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. Mr O. Limarev complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime.He 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 Court reiterates that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 99, 20 October 2016). In Murray v. the Netherlands ([GC] no. 10511/10, § 101-04, 26 April 2016) it noted the importance of the principle of rehabilitation and the respect for human dignity guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention.
8. Bearing those principles in mind in its leading judgment of N.T. v. Russia (no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020), the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of unjustified and prolonged application to a life convict of statutory restrictions inherent in the strict regime of imprisonment. In particular, it was not satisfied with the prolonged segregation of the applicant, the very limited amount of time allowed for outdoor exercise or the lack of any purposeful activity for him. The Court stated that those factors had resulted in intense and prolonged feeling of loneliness and boredom, which caused significant distress to the applicant and could result in the loss of social skills and individual personal traits. The circumstances of the case at hand do not significantly differ from that case. The Court therefore does not see any reasons to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about restrictions on family visits. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings inKhoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015.
11. Mr O. Limarev also complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about his ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine neither the admissibility nor the merits of the remaining complaint (see, among many others, Zhirkova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 16203/13 and 4 others, § 48, 30 March 2021, with further references).
IV. 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, Khoroshenko, cited above, § 156, and 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 claims for just satisfaction.
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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime and about therestrictions on family visits and telephone calls admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 about impossibility to participate in elections;
3. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the complaint about restrictions on family visits and telephone calls raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 period plus three percentage points.
6. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27October 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 |
Facility | Start and end date of detention under strict regime | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 15812/16 04/03/2016 |
Oleg Maksimovich LIMAREV 1981 Maksim Nikolayevich LIMAREV 1961 Valentina Nikolayevna LIMAREVA 1959 |
The first applicant was detained in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Region |
The period of detention of the first applicant: 18/12/2009 – 24/06/2021 | Art. 8 (1) – lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – the first applicant and the remaining two applicants, his parents, complain about limited number of visits and no phone calls allowed under strict regime (Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015). | 3,000, to the first applicant; 6,000, jointly to all three applicants. |
| 2. | 9874/18 05/02/2018 |
Oleg Maksimovich LIMAREV 1981 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply