The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Yelistratov 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 20 October 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 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 their detention. They 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention in the remand prison and the courthouse. 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 7. The Court notes that all or some of the applicants were detained in overcrowded cells in remand prison IZ-1 in Kazan for lengthy periods and were held for hours in the cramped holding cells (convoy cells), without access to fresh air or natural light, in the basement of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see Mur\u0161i\u0107v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, ECHR 2016; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10 January 2012) in which the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 8. 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 were inadequate.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-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 findings in Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and MariyaAlekhina and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a038004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, as regards detention in a metal cage or glass cabin during court hearings and inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov v. Russia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154\u201158, 161\u201165, 22\u00a0May 2012, as regards an excessive length of detention review proceedings; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 114-56, 9\u00a0April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and absence of an effective remedy to complain about poor transport conditions; Volkov and Adamskiy\u00a0v. Russia, nos.\u00a07614\/09\u00a0and\u00a030863\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 56-61, 26 March 2015, as regards the failure to provide the applicants with legal aid lawyers; and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404\/18 and 3 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a039\u201142, 14\u00a0December 2021 and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a031\u201133, 18\u00a0February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in the remand prison and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. Article\u00a041 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 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others, cited above, \u00a7 172), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sumsindicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 13. 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. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n 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);<\/p>\n 5. 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 period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF YELISTRATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 24453\/17 and 32 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 November 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\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)<\/p>\n