The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention under strict imprisonment regime.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of A.K. v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,<\/p>\n Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity under Rule\u00a047 \u00a7 4 of the Rules of Court,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application 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 21 November 2014.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Mrs V.A. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow.<\/p>\n 3. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention under strict imprisonment regime.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained that he was detained in poor conditions under strict imprisonment regime. He relied, expressly or in substance, 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 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\u2019s previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 96-100, 20 October 2016, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018\/11 and 61199\/12, \u00a7\u00a0199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).<\/p>\n 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 case.<\/p>\n 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant\u2019s rights were violated.<\/p>\n 10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. The applicant further complained about material conditions of detention after conviction and lack of effective remedies to complain about violation of his rights in prison. 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 these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR\u00a02014).<\/p>\n 12. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. 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 15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, N.T., cited above, \u00a7 61), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 16. 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. Declares the complaint concerning the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regimeadmissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately further complaints about material conditions of detention after conviction and lack of effective remedies in that regard and dismisses the remainder of the application as inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 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 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n (in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 21\/11\/2014<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 1988<\/td>\n Moscow<\/td>\n [1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n
\nCASE OF A.K. v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 76560\/14)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n27 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Facility<\/strong><\/td>\n Start and end date of detention under strict regime<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 76560\/14<\/p>\n A. K.<\/strong><\/p>\n Valentina AleksandrovnaBokareva<\/p>\n IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region, IK-6 Khabarovsk Region<\/td>\n 04\/11\/2010 – pending<\/td>\n 3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n