Last Updated on December 1, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KASHIN AND PETKYAVICHUS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15007/19 and 17123/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kashin and Petkyavichus v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 November 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. They 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’ 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 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 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. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 findings in Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention, for the periods indicated in the appended table below, and in Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 143‑56, concerning lack of an effective remedy in the respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport.
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the complaints 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.
14. In application no. 15007/19 the applicant also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of domestic remedies for him to complain about poor conditions of detention in a correctional colony. The Court, however, considers that it has already addressed the main legal issues raised by this application and concludes that there is no need to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 in view of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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.
17. 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, holds that it is not necessary examine the remaining complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention by the application in application no. 15007/19 and declares 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 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 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 1 December 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. | 15007/19
25/02/2019 |
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KASHIN
1977 |
van, train
19/01/2019 to 19/01/2019 |
eight-hours’ long ride by train, 8 persons detained in a small compartment, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, passive smoking | Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – Inadequate conditions of detention in IK-1 Komi Republic (19/01/2019 – pending): overcrowding, less than 1 sq. m of personal space per inmate in the dormitory; lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water |
13,500 | |
| 2. | 17123/19
13/03/2019 |
Vitaliy Vladimirovich PETKYAVICHUS
1983 |
train
11/10/2018 to 13/10/2018 |
0.5 m² | lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, overcrowding, poor quality of food | 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