Last Updated on March 30, 2023 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF IONOV AND KLIMENKO v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 9289/15 and 33932/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 March 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ionov and Klimenko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. 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.
2. 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. In application no. 9289/15 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
3. THE LAW
1. 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.
2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of 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:
“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.
3. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant in application no. 9289/15 further raised the issue of the lack of effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the applicant and that there is no need to examine this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
12. The applicant in the same application also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
4. 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, N.T., cited above, § 61), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
4. 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 regime admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately a complaint about the lack of effective remedies raised in application no. 9289/15, and dismisses the remaining complaint in application no. 9289/15 as inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications 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
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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. | 9289/15 21/10/2014 |
Sergey Ivanovich IONOV 1980 |
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region | 08/12/2017 – pending | 3,000 | |
| 2. | 33932/17 21/03/2017 |
Konstantin Vladislavovich KLIMENKO 1965 |
Barsukova Erika Nikolayevna Moscow |
IK-5 Vologda Region | 04/12/2012 – pending | 3,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply