European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KORABLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 33771/16 and 17 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 October 2023

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

In the case of Korablev and Others v. Russia,

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

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 October 2023,

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

1. 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.

2. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

3. 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:

"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 during the transit of prisoners (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 124-27, 9 April 2019). It reiterates in particular that a strong presumption of a violation arises when detainees are transported in conveyances offering less than 0.5 square metres of space per person, regardless of whether such cramped conditions result from an excessive number of detainees being transported together or from the restrictive design of compartments (ibid., § 125). As regards longer journeys, factors such as a failure to arrange an individual sleeping place for each detainee or to secure an adequate supply of drinking water and food or access to the toilet seriously aggravate the situation of prisoners during transfers and are indicative of a violation of Article 3 (ibid., § 127).

9.  In the leading case of Tomov and Others (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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.

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

12.  Some 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 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 Salduz v. Turkey, [GC], no 36391/02, 27 November 2008, §§ 50-62, concerning restrictions on the right to be effectively defended by a lawyer; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings, Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 6 February 2016, concerning domestic courts' refusal to ensure the detained applicants' presence in court in civil cases).

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13.  Mr Korablev (application no. 33771/16) and Mr Tkhaguzhokov (application no. 24860/20) also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

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 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.

15.  Furthermore, in view of the findings in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by Mr Zelenskiy (application no. 17760/19) and Mr Pronin (application no. 29030/19) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

6. 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), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 33771/16 and 24860/20 as inadmissible, and holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaints lodged under Article 13 of the Convention by the applicants in applications nos. 17760/19 and 29030/19 in respect of the lack of remedies to complain about their placement in a metal cage in the courtroom;
4. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 26 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.