The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Kolbaya and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION NO. 2512\/18 UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in case no. 2512\/18 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the cases (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.26307\/95, \u00a7 75, ECHR 2003\u2011VI).<\/p>\n III. alleged violation of article\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. 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:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 8. The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants\u2019 transport are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a06847\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0118\u2011120, ECHR\u00a02005 X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a042239\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a053\u201160, 31\u00a0July 2008). It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122\u201141, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 9. In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 10. 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\u2019 conditions of detention during their transport were inadequate.<\/p>\n 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Some applicants submitted additional 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 V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. In applications nos.\u00a075645\/14, 54075\/16, 31994\/17, 81336\/17, 1825\/19, 33226\/19 and 26231\/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 14. 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos.\u00a017494\/16 and 29203\/16, 16 November 2017, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike application no. 2512\/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well\u2011established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of applications nos.\u00a075645\/14, 54075\/16, 31994\/17, 81336\/17, 1825\/19, 33226\/19 and 26231\/20inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;<\/p>\n 5. 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 the appended table);<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Darian Pavli ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF KOLBAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 75645\/14 and 7 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 154-58, 22\u00a0May 2012, concerning the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters;Tomov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about the conditions of transport; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in the courtroom).<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)<\/p>\n