The applicants complainedof 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 Akhmedyanov 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 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 complainedof the inadequate conditions of their detention. 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. 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 the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants\u2019 detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7 96-177, 20 October 2016; Kud\u0142a\u00a0v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a090\u201194, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and\u00a060800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0139\u201165, 10\u00a0January 2012). 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevi\u010dius v.\u00a0Lithuania, no.\u00a053254\/99, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a036\u201340, 7\u00a0April 2005).<\/p>\n 8. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no.\u00a05993\/08, 28\u00a0November 2013, 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 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 the periods indicated in the appended table were inadequate.<\/p>\n 10. 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 11. Some applicants 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\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 Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057\/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019.<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Several applicants submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to their conditions-of-detention complaints. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine these complaints separately.<\/p>\n 13. In application no. 15707\/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention.<\/p>\n 14. The Court has examined these 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\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 V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. 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 16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no.\u00a05993\/08, 16 October 2014 and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a016401\/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated 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. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction during the periods set out in the appended table and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,\u00a0finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention raised in relation to the conditions-of-detention complaints, and decides that the remainder of application no.\u00a015707\/18 is inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;<\/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 the 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2011, 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 AKHMEDYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 11243\/17 and 20 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 November 2011<\/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 after conviction)<\/p>\n