Source: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/36101-11-aristov-i-inni-v-rosja-wyrok-europejskiego-522165760
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 08:22:45
Document Index: 404426053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 90', '§ 139', '§ 39', '§ 145', '§ 54', '§ 3', '§ 100', '§ 139', '§ 154', '§ 161', '§ 103', '§ 68', '§ 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 3']

36101/11, ARISTOV I INNI v. ROSJA - Wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
36101/11, ARISTOV I INNI v. ROSJA - Wyrok...
36101/11
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0721JUD003610111
CASE OF ARISTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 36101/11, 36831/11, 52683/12, 63745/12, 59337/13, 67679/13, 67943/13, 77397/13, 3251/14, 9694/14, 13257/14 and 19016/14)
In the case of Aristov and Others v. Russia,
and Hasan Bakırcı Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016,
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").
4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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:
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, §§ 139–165, 10 January 2012). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are "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, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145–147 and 149).
8. In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54–64, 12 November 2015, 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.
11. Some 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 Ananyev and Others (cited above, §§ 100–119, pertaining to the absence of an effective remedy to complaint about the conditions of detention in Russia) and Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 139-149, 22 May 2012, concerning the reasons for and length of the pre-trial detention; §§ 154-158 and §§ 161-164 of the same judgment, concerning procedural defects and the lack of speediness in the review of the detention matters, and §§ 103-108 relevant to the conditions of transport of detainees).
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case–law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, § 68, 12 November 2015), 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.
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);
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 July 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sq. m. per inmate
Denis Gennadyevich ARISTOV
Marusov Boris Borisovich
IZ-16/1 Kazan
28/02/2008 to
5 months and
IZ-77/5 Moscow
21/08/2008 to
IZ-47/1
24/10/2009 to
11 months and
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, sleeping in turns.
Low partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was 1.5 m away from the dining table.
Constant cigarette smoke, No ventilation.
Constant electric light.
No individual sleeping place
the applicant is a non-smoker.
Now partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was 1 m away from the dining table.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
36831/11
Arkadiy Arkadyevich KIRSANOV
IZ-30/1 Astrakhan
19/02/2011 to
7 months and
IZ-30/2 Astrakhan Region
16/10/2012 to
09/01/2013 to
Insects, rodents.
Constant cigarette smoke (the applicant is a non-smoker), no ventilation.
No privacy when using lavatory.
No heating in autumn-winter.
Constant cigarette smoke (the applicant is a non-smoker).
The lavatory was close to a dining table.
No individual sleeping place.
Inadequate temperature.
52683/12
Aleksandr Gennadyevich VASILYEV
IZ-50/6 Kolomna Moscow Region
10/02/2012 to
No privacy when using lavatory as there was no partition separating it from the living room.
No ventilation. Stench.
High humidity, mould on the walls and ceiling.
Insects, rats. Poor lighting.
Poor quality of food, no drinking water.
63745/12
Viktor Viktorovich YEMELYANOV
Anokhin Aleksandr Anatolyevich
06/03/2012 to
4 months and
01/08/2012 to
Poor lighting and ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is a non-smoker, infestation in the cells, merely 30 minutes of daily outdoor exercise, low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet was close to the dining table
low partition between the toilet and the living room, the toilet close the dining table, poor ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, the applicant is a non-smoker, rotten wooden floor, mould on the ceiling and walls, rodents and insects.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention
59337/13
Roman Sergeyevich SHILOV
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
20/08/2012 to
1 month and
IZ-77/7 Moscow
24/09/2012 to
Toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, dining table close to the toilet, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of fresh air, infestation of the cell with insects, constant cigarette smoke
insufficient number of beds in the cell, the applicant slept on the floor, no privacy when using toilet, lack of (sufficient) natural light, lack of (regular) physical exercise outside, lack of regular possibility to wash himself, poor quality of food, constant cigarette smoke
67679/13
Aleksandr Sergeyevich VILGELM
21/12/2012 to
Lack of fresh air, no drinking water, infestation of the cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention,
67943/13
Denis Mukhtarovich ISKANDAROV
27/05/2012 to
No privacy when using lavatory, no ventilation, high humidity, no hot water, poor quality of food
77397/13
Danil Lyabibovich GABDULKHAKOV
Khamzin Ural Irnazarovich
IZ-3/1 Ufa
28/06/2013 to
Solitary confinement, no heating, extremely cold in winter, no washstand, squat toilet, poor quality of water, no hot water, poor lighting, mould on the walls, insects, no flush in toilet, stench, no ventilation, poor quality of food, no pillow or blanket, possibility to wash himself once in 10 days, outdoor exercise for 30 minutes allowed not every day
Sergey Vladimirovich GOLYAKIN
Shkryuba Roman Vladimirovich
IZ-37/1 Ivanovo
24/05/2013 to
Overcrowding, no individual sleeping place, sleeping in turns, no privacy when using toilet, stench, insects, rodents
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial,
9694/14
Andrey Leonidovich IVANOV
IZ-54/1 Novosibirsk
14/05/2009 to
15/09/2010 to
overcrowding, lack of (sufficient) natural light, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of fresh air, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
overcrowding, insufficient number of beds in the cell
13257/14
Ilya Vyacheslavovich VASILYEV
07/02/2012 to
No partition separating the toilet from the living room, the toilet was 1 metre away from the dining table, no ventilation, low temperature, possibility to take a shower once in 7 or more days
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention
19016/14
Aleksey Viktorovich VERESHCHAGIN
Inter-district Psychiatric Hospital IZ-67/1 Smolensk
07/11/2013 to
No washstand or toilet in the cell, no drinking water, possibility to wash himself once in 10 days, no outside exercise, poor quality of food
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport