FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KLIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 37487/19 and 34 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Klimov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 February 2024,
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
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.
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).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. 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, 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, §§ 139-165, 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).
9. 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.
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 were inadequate.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
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 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees, Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy for a complaint about inadequate conditions during transport; and Sergey Babushkin, cited above, §§ 38-45, concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the complaint about conditions of post-conviction detention).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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 that the finding of a violation in application no. 40729/19 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS
, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;
Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
Declares the applications admissible;
Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;
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 the appended table);
Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 40729/19;
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 7 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant's name
Year of birth
Representative's name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Inmates per brigade
Sq. m per inmate
Number of toilets per brigade
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]
37487/19
28/06/2019
Aleksandr Viktorovich KLIMOV
1983
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
01/06/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022
6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)
120 inmate(s)
1.7 m²
6 toilet(s)
8 sinks, poor quality of food, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, warm seasonal clothing not provided, no ventilation, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell
12,500
37703/19
05/11/2019
Aleksey Anatolyevich KAPLIN
1978
IK-8 Tatarstan Republic
20/06/2012 to
16/09/2022
10 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)
200 inmate(s)
4 toilet(s)
no or restricted access to toilet
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
12,500
37710/19
10/10/2019
Andrey Leonidovich MISHARIN
1983
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
11/03/2019 to
22/04/2019
1 month(s) and 12 day(s)
120 inmate(s)
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.