UTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• Judgment Date: 10 November 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD005478416
• Counsel: ZHILTSOV S.V.
• Date: 10 November 2022
• Application Number: 54784/16;64023/16;44936/17;71433/17;75962/17;75965/17;80171/17;82128/17;83266/17;705/18;1019/18;2252/18;3051/18;3053/18;4273/18;4571/18;5329/18;7977/18;8756/18;10092/18;10379/18;11742/18;13624/18;14219/18;14410/18;15851/18;16100/18;17140/18;18779/18;19889/18;20437/18;21498/18;22632/18;23160/18;23389/18;31321/18;31325/18;31457/18;31740/18;33133/18;33494/18;34903/18
• Court: Third Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Rusia
• Applied Rules: 3

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF UTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 54784/16 and 41 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 November 2022

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

In the case of Utin 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 20 October 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 their detention. 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. 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-177, 20 October 2016; 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, as described in the appended table below, were inadequate.

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

3. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11. In applications nos. 705/18, 4273/18, 10092/18 and 10379/18 the applicants submitted a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the complaint separately.

12. In application no. 7977/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

13. 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 application 7977/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014, and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction during the periods indicated in the appended table admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately some of the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention and declares the remainder of application no. 7977/18 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after...