European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PAVLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 39095/17 and 3 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Pavlov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,

          Andreas Zünd,

          Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,

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 Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 detention during their transport. 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.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONs NOs. 47094/17 and 71820/17

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations in applications nos. 47094/17 and 71820/17 which were not accepted by the applicants. The Court notes that the unilateral declaration did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike these applications out and will accordingly pursue their examination (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport. 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.”

8.  The Court notes that the applicants were detained in poor conditions during transport. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding cramped and defective conditions in the detention and transit of prisoners (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 118‑20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53‑60, 31 July 2008). 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 Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122‑41, ECHR 2016, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).

9.  In the leading case of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of the issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  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 during their transport were inadequate.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

12.  In applications nos. 39095/17, 47094/17 and 71820/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which 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 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 well-established case-law (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-45, ECHR 2014 (extracts), regarding placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 143-56, 9 April 2019, concerning lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport).

13.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint lodged by Mr Makarov (application no. 71820/17) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS

14.  In applications nos. 39095/17 and 35416/19 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

15.  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 34 and 35 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.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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.”

17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017, Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, Kungurov v. Russia, no. 70468/17, 18 February 2020, and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

18.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in applications nos. 47094/17 and 71820/17 and rejects the respondent Government’s request to strike these applications out of its list of cases;

3.      Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint lodged by Mr Makarov (application no. 71820/17) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 39095/19 and 35416/19 as inadmissible;

4.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;

5.      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);

6.      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 during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli
    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)