CASE OF BIRYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 36006/11 and 8 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 May 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
Суд установил в отношении Ахмедова Ризвана Магомедовича 12/10/1983, Качаева Владимира Николаевича 01/09/1974, Гекчана Арама Камоевича 12/09/1987, Родина Виталия Викторовича, что заявления свидетельствуют о нарушении статьи 3 Конвенции в отношении ненадлежащих условий содержания под стражей; и. Постановил, что имело место нарушение в отношении других претензий, высказанных в устоявшемся прецедентном праве Суда (см. ниже Таблицу);
Один час в день упражнения на открытом воздухе, неудовлетворительные санитарные условия, плохое освещение, высокая влажность и плесень, насекомых, воды питьевой нет, содержание больных туберкулезом и гепатит-инфицированных заключенных в камере с другими осужденными
Их интересы представлял я. По соседству жалоба Бирюкова из ИК-5.
Аналогичное решение принято и в отношении Амеяна Котика Усубовича, Гаврилина Вячеслава Мироновича, Пироева Гагика Ванияевича, Юдина Александра Александровича
В решении
In the case of Biryukovand Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
BrankoLubarda, judges,
and KarenReid, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
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 their detention.Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑65, 10 January 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 “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36–40, 7 April 2005).
8. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
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’ conditions of detention were inadequate.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 36006/11, 37211/11, 53965/12, 53969/12, 55356/12 and 74792/12, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (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 Sergey Babushkin case (cited above, §§ 38-45).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case‑law and the long delay for some of the applicants in filing the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. The Court 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 4 May 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
KarenReid Luis López Guerra
Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant name Date of birth | Representative name and location | Facility Start and end date Duration | Sq. m. per inmate | Specific grievances | Other complaints under well‑established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 36006/11 12/05/2011 | AleksandrAleksandrovichBiryukov 18/01/1977 | IK-5 Republic of Mordovia 13/03/2009 pending More than 8 year(s) and 18 day(s) | 1.3 m² | No hot water, 4-6 sinks for more than 100 inmates, toilet (holes dug out in the ground) is a separately standing facility, same temperature inside it as outside, low quality of clothes, footgear, coverings, tuberculosis-infected inmates in the dormitory, poor sanitary conditions, rodents, insects, poor quality of food and running water, no ventilation, no access to natural light. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 22,800 | |
| 2. | 37211/11 04/04/2011 (4 applicants) | RizvanMagomedovichAkhmedov 12/10/1983 Vladimir Nikolayevich Kachayev 01/09/1974 Aram KamoyevichGekchan 12/09/1987 VitaliyViktorovich Rodin | MaryinSergey Trofimovich Saransk | IK-7 Republic of Mordovia 04/04/2011 pending More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s) | 2 m² | One hour of daily outdoor exercises, poor sanitary conditions, poor lighting, high humidity and mould, insects, no drinking water, tuberculosis and hepatitis-infected inmates in the cell | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 20,000 |
| 3. | 53965/12 26/06/2012 | Sergey MikhaylovichKolesnikov 27/07/1981 | IK-29 Kirov Region 15/09/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) | 1.5 m² | Tuberculosis-infected inmates in the dormitory. Toilet outside, with no heating, stench, poor quality of food and running water. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 19,500 | |
| 4. | 53969/12 07/07/2012 | Sergey Nikolayevich Ivanov 17/04/1977 | IK-29 Kirov Region 15/08/2009 to 22/08/2013 4 year(s) and 8 day(s) | 1.8 m² | Tuberculosis-infected inmates in the dormitory. Toilet outside, with no heating, stench, insects. Poor quality of food and running water. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 8,500 | |
| 5. | 55356/12 25/07/2012 | DmitriyAnatolyevichShatalov 24/05/1973 | IK-18 Novosibirsk 24/06/2010 to 24/04/2014 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 1 day(s) | 1.3 m² | Fewer sleeping places than inmates, 6-7 sinks and 5-6 pans for 140-165 inmates, no hot water, no curtains to separate the lavatory. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 10,300 | |
| 6. | 74792/12 02/11/2012 | Vladimir ValeryevichPartionov 16/08/1973 | GordeyevaMargarita Vladimirovna Astrakhan | IK-1 Rostov Region 15/11/2010 pending More than 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 16 day(s) | 1.7 m² | Fewer sleeping places than inmates, sleeping in turns. 5 pans and 5 sinks for 137-152 inmates, no privacy when using lavatory, poor quality of food. | Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention - | 18,300 |
| 7. | 76153/12 10/10/2012 | Aleksey Nikolayevich Uzilov 17/09/1976 | IK-18 KharpYamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Region 10/08/2012 to 10/09/2012 1 month(s) and 1 day(s) IK-18 KharpYamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Region 22/10/2012 to 18/11/2012 28 day(s) | 3.2 m² 3.2 m² | No space to move in the cell, 4.5 sq. m. of space for three inmates for outdoor exercise, sub-zero temperature in winter time. The lavatory pan is next to the bed, no partition. No space to move in the cell, 4.5 sq. m. of space for three inmates for outdoor exercise, sub-zero temperature in winter time, the lavatory pan is next to the bed, no partition. | 1,400 | ||
| 8. | 77937/12 04/12/2012 | Ivan YuryevichTsymbarevich 19/08/1970 | VinogradovAleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma | IK-4 Kostroma Region 15/07/2012 to 15/04/2013 9 month(s) and 1 day(s) | 1.9 m² | Cracks in the walls. High humidity, mould on the walls, rodents, insects, poor lighting, no artificial ventilation, poor quality of water, sanitary conditions, tuberculosis-infected inmates in the dormitory, insufficient space for outdoor exercise. | 4,300 | |
| 9. | 56384/13 15/08/2013 | Konstantin EduardovichGarifullin 19/06/1974 | IK-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 27/04/2013 to 12/07/2015 2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 16 day(s) | 1.4 m² | Poor sanitary conditions. 4 pans and 5 sinks for 130 inmates, poor lighting, no ventilation, tuberculosis and hepatitis-infected inmates in the dormitory. | 8,800 |
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Европейский Суд по правам человека
ТРЕТЬЯ СЕКЦИЯ
Дело Бирюков и другие против России
(Жалоба № 36006/11 и 8 других - см. приложенный список)
Суд
Страсбург 4 мая 2017 года
Это решение является окончательным, но может быть подвергнуто редакционной правке.
В деле Бирюков и другие против России, Европейский Суд по правам человека (третья секция), заседая Комитетом в составе: Луис Лопес Герра, Председатель, Дмитрий Дедов, BrankoLubarda, судей, и Karen Reid, секретаря секции,
Рассмотрев дело в закрытом заседании 30 марта 2017 года
Вынес следующее решение, которое было принято на эту дату:
Процедура
1. Дело возбуждено по жалобам против России, поданным в суд согласно статье 34 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод (“Конвенция”) на различные статьи, указанные в прилагаемой таблице.
2. Жалобы были направлены в Правительство России (“правительство”).
ФАКТЫ
3. Список заявителей и соответствующие детали заявки изложены в прилагаемой таблице.
4. Заявители жаловались на ненадлежащие условия их содержания под стражей. Отдельные заявители также затронул ряд других жалоб, в соответствии с положениями Конвенции.
ПРАВО
I. Объединение жалоб
5. С учетом аналогичных требований заявлений, суд считает целесообразным рассмотреть их совместно в одном постановлении.