In the case of Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as
a Chamber composed of:
Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no.
4265/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Dmitriy Igorevich Rozhin (“the
applicant”), on 8 December 2005. On 28 March 2011 the applicant introduced
a further complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in correctional
facility no. IK-13 in the Sverdlovsk Region in respect of the period
between 15 August 2005 and 17 February 2006.
The applicant was represented by Ms L. Churkina,
a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had
been detained in overcrowded cells and that his detention from 3 to 15 August
2005 had been unlawful.
On 30 August 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yekaterinburg.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 6 March 2003 the applicant, an
investigator with the prosecutor’s office, was charged with abuse of power. In
particular, he was accused of having forged a court decision ordering the release
of a rape suspect, and subsequent concealment and theft of the relevant
criminal case-file. On an unspecified date the applicant signed an undertaking
not to leave town.
From 27 January to 5 February 2004 the
applicant, who had earlier been diagnosed with bladder cancer, was placed in
hospital.
On 9 February 2004 the Verkh-Yesetskiy
District Court of Yekaterinburg remanded the applicant in custody pending
investigation. The court considered that the applicant’s failure to notify the
investigator of his admission to hospital was in contravention of his
undertaking not to leave town. The applicant was arrested on the same day.
On 5 March 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court
quashed the decision of 9 February 2004 on appeal. The appeal court considered
that the court’s findings and its decision to remand the applicant in custody
had been “premature”. The applicant was released on 10 March 2004.
On 11 March 2004 the applicant was admitted
to hospital, where he underwent surgery. He was discharged from hospital on
24 March 2004.
On 14 March 2005 the Leninskiy District
Court of Yekaterinburg found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him
to one year’s detention in a correctional settlement. The applicant was
remanded in custody on the same day.
On 29 June 2005 the Regional Court upheld
the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant and his lawyer participated
in the hearing by means of a video teleconference.
B. Conditions of detention
1. Remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg
From 9 February to 10 March 2004 and
from 15 March to 3 August 2005 the applicant was detained in remand
prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg.
(a) Period from 9 February to 10 March 2004
According to the applicant, from 9 February
to 10 March 2004 he was detained in cell no. 602, which was severely
overcrowded. The cell was infested with bed bugs and other insects. The food
was of very poor quality. He did not have access to any medical assistance.
(b) Period from 15 March to 3 August 2005
(i) The description provided by the Government
According to the Government,
on 15 March 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 311, which measured
30 sq. m and was equipped with twelve sleeping places. According to the remand
prison population register submitted by the Government, the number of inmates
held in the cell during the period in question varied from 13 to 27, with three
exceptions when the cell held twelve inmates on 1 April, 11 June and 2 August
2005.
The cell was equipped with natural and artificial
ventilation which was in good working order. The cell had two windows covered
with metal bars which did not prevent access of daylight. The artificial
lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from 6
a.m. to 10 p.m. At night low-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting
in the cell. The toilet was located in the corner of the cell near the entrance
door and was separated from the living area of the cell by a brick wall which
was one metre high and ensured the privacy of the person using it. The distance
between the toilet and the dining table was 3 m. The closest sleeping place was
located 2.5 m away from the toilet. The applicant was at all times provided
with an individual sleeping place, bed sheets and cutlery. The applicant was
allowed one hour’s exercise per day. The cell was disinfected once a month.
During the period in
question, the applicant met with his family and relatives six times.
(ii) The description provided by the applicant
According to the applicant, at all times the
number of sleeping places in the cell was insufficient and the inmates had to
take turns to sleep. Bed sheets, towels and cutlery were supplied by the
applicant’s family. The light was constantly on. The cell was infested with bed
bugs and lice. The ceiling leaked. There was no ventilation in the cell. All
the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to tobacco
smoke. He was allegedly denied medical assistance.
2. Correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil
(a) The description provided by the Government
According to the Government, on 4 August
2005 the applicant arrived at correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy
Tagil and was placed in a disciplinary cell measuring 8 sq. m, where
he was held until 15 August 2005, together with two other inmates. There
were four sleeping places in the cell. The hygiene conditions in the cell were
in compliance with applicable standards. The cell was equipped with natural and
artificial ventilation in good working order. The cell was well lit. The window
ensured sufficient access of daylight. The toilet was separated from the rest
of the cell by a wall which was 1.1 m high and ensured the privacy of the
person using it. The applicant was allowed two hours’ of exercise per day.
On 15 August 2005 the applicant was moved
from the disciplinary cell to dormitory no. 3 in section no. 19. The
dormitory measured 23.1 square meters and had six sleeping places. The
number of inmates assigned to the dormitory was six at all times. The applicant
was provided with an individual sleeping place, bed sheets and cutlery. The
dormitory had two bathrooms. The first one had three sinks and two toilets and
the second one had four sinks and three toilets. There was also a separate
shower room. Section no. 19 of the correctional settlement had a surface
area of 2,498 square metres and was equipped with basketball and
volleyball grounds, and an area specially designed for weightlifting and training
on pull-up bars. It was open to the applicant to move freely within the
settlement.
(b) The description
provided by the applicant
According to the applicant, the disciplinary cell
where he was detained from 4 to 15 August 2005 had no access to natural
light. The window was covered with metal bars and shutters. The food was of
very poor quality. The applicant was allowed only brief daily walks and had to
remain standing for the rest of the day. The beds were pulled up and fastened
against the wall during the day time. The cell was infested with mice. The
ceiling leaked. The toilet was located 0.1 metres away from the nearest bed.
There were seven inmates assigned to dormitory
no. 3 while there were only six sleeping places. The applicant conceded
that he had an individual sleeping place and bed sheets.
The proper temperature was not maintained in the
cells and dormitories of the settlement. It was very cold in the winter and too
hot in the summer inside the premises. They were infested with mice. The floors
were rotten. The ceiling was covered with mould and fungus.
On 17 February 2006 the applicant was
released, having served his sentence.
C. Civil claims brought by the applicant
1. Complaint against correctional settlement
no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil
On 23 June 2006 the
Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg considered the applicant’s claims
against correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil in part. As
regards the applicant’s allegations concerning a lack of medical assistance in
the ensuing period, the court dismissed them as unsubstantiated. It noted that
the applicant had been able to consult medical professionals from both the
medical unit of the penal establishment and the municipal outpatient clinic and
hospital where he had undergone an examination and surgery in December 2005. As
to the applicant’s detention in a disciplinary cell from 4 to 15 August
2005, the court noted as follows:
“The [applicant’s] argument that his right to be detained in normal
conditions ... was infringed by the administration of correctional settlement
no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil has been confirmed. According to the letters of
the Nizhniy Tagil Prosecutor’s Office ... of 19 December 2005 and
25 October 2005, it was established in the course of the inquiries that,
on 4 August 2005, upon arrival [to the correctional settlement] [the
applicant] was placed in the quarantine section ... in contravention of
Article 79 § 2 of the Code on the Execution of Criminal
Sentences. On the basis of the inquiries’ findings, the Nizhniy Tagil
Prosecutor’s Office sent a citation to the head of the [regional department of
corrections]. The inquiry has established that the quarantine section, where
the applicant was held, was located in the disciplinary cell, where the
conditions of detention were close to those maintained in prisons, that is the
conditions of detention in the quarantine section were similar to the one
appropriate for a disciplinary cell.
...
The [applicant’s] argument that the personal space afforded to
him while he was detained in the quarantine section was [below the statutory
standards] has been confirmed. According to Article 99 § 1 of 2
of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences, the personal space afforded
to one person serving a criminal sentence should not be less than 2 square
metres. According to the findings of the Nizhniy Tagil Prosecutor’s Office ...
of 14 April 2006 ..., the quarantine section where [the applicant] was
detained measured overall 8 square metres. There were from 2 to 3 other
persons detained together with [the applicant]. This fact was not disputed by
the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil. It follows that the personal space afforded to the detainees was below 2
square metres in contravention of Article 99 of the Code on the Execution
of Criminal Sentences ... .
...
Having regard to the above ..., the Court has decided
To consider unlawful the following actions of the
administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil:
1. [The applicant’s] detention in conditions which
did not correspond to the normal regime of serving a sentence;
...
3. The failure to ensure that the personal space
afforded to [the applicant] during his detention in the quarantine section was
in compliance with the statutory requirements.”
On 15 August 2006 the Regional Court upheld
the decision of 23 June 2006 on appeal.
2. Action for damages in connection with the applicant’s
detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional settlement
no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil
In July or August 2006 the applicant brought a claim
for damages in connection with (a) his allegedly unlawful detention and the
alleged lack of medical assistance in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 from
9 February to 10 March 2004, and (b) his unlawful detention in
correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil from 4 to
15 August 2005, and the alleged lack of medical assistance in the ensuing
period.
On 25 December 2006 the
Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg dismissed the applicant’s claim. In
particular, the court found that the applicant’s detention from 9 February
to 10 March 2004 in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 had not been unlawful,
even though the relevant court order had subsequently been quashed on appeal.
The court also dismissed the applicant’s allegations about lack of medical
assistance in correctional settlement no. IK-13 as unsubstantiated. As
regards the applicant’s claim for damages in connection with the unlawful
actions of the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil, the court noted as follows:
“Even though, according to the judgment of the Chkalovskiy
District Court of Yekaterinburg [of 23 June 2006], the actions of the
administration of the correctional settlement were found to be unlawful, [the
court] discerns nothing for it to award non-pecuniary damages to [the
applicant]. The factors to be taken into consideration for such an award are
the existence of physical and mental suffering, the unlawfulness of the action
(failure to act), and the link between the action and resulting damage, the
wilful behaviour on the part of the wrongdoer.
Having regard to the material [before the court], it does not
discern that [the applicant] had sustained any physical or mental suffering
resulting from the violation of his rights as established in the judgment of
the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg.”
D. Petition for expungement of the applicant’s criminal
record
On an unspecified date the applicant filed an application
for expungement of his criminal record. He referred to his positive character
references, his employment and his family.
On 18 October 2006 the Chkalovskiy District
Court of Yekaterinburg refused to grant the applicant’s petition.
On 6 December 2006 the Regional Court
upheld the decision of 18 October 2006 on appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Conditions of pre-trial detention
Section 23 of the Detention of Suspects Act of
15 July 1995 provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy
sanitary and hygiene requirements. They should be provided with an individual
sleeping place and given bedding, tableware and toiletries. Each inmate should
have no less than four square metres of personal space in his or her cell.
33. Moreover, detainees should be given, free of
charge, sufficient food for the maintenance of good health in line with the
standards established by the Government of the Russian Federation (Section 22
of the Act).
Article 99 of the Russian Code on the Execution
of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997, as amended, provides that the personal
space allocated to each individual in a dormitory should be no less than two square
metres. The inmates are to be provided with individual sleeping places, bed
sheets, toiletries and seasonal clothes.
B. Types of detention regimes
The Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences
provides for five main types of penal institutions for convicted criminals:
correctional settlement, general regime colony, strict regime colony, special
regime colony, and prison.
The conditions imposed on an inmate serving a sentence
in a correctional settlement are the mildest. In particular, the convicts do
not live in cells or barracks but in unguarded dormitories. They have the right
to move freely within the correctional settlement during the day. The number
and length of family visits are not limited, nor is the possibility of
receiving parcels and money from home. As an incentive for good behaviour, and
subject to approval by the administration, the convicts may, inter alia,
live outside the correctional settlement with their families, live in rented
flats, leave the correctional settlement for holidays and weekends, and move
freely within the city or district where the settlement is situated. They do
not wear a uniform and can dispose of their money as they please. The convicts
may even be granted leave to work in another town or district, or participate
in distance-learning programmes of higher education establishments.
The regime in a prison is the most severe. The
convicts are detained in cells. They are allowed daily outdoor exercise not
exceeding one hour and a half. The number of family visits and parcels received
is limited. So is the amount of money the convicts may spend during a month.
Upon arrival at a penal institution, a convict may
be placed in quarantine quarters for a period of up to fifteen days. The
conditions of detention in the quarantine quarters are similar to those of the penal
institution itself.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
In the application form of 8 December 2005,
the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in remand prison
no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg from 9 February to 10 March
2004 and from 15 March to 3 August 2005, and about the conditions of
his detention in correctional facility no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil from 4
to 15 August 2005. Furthermore, in his submissions of 28 March 2011,
the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in correctional
facility no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil from 15 August to
17 February 2006. He referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads
as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint
concerns two separate periods of detention, that is, (1) from 9 February to
10 March 2004, when he was released pending trial, and (2) from
15 March 2005, when he was again remanded in custody, to 17 February
2006, when he was released having served his sentence. In this connection, the
Court reiterates that where an applicant is released but subsequently
redetained, it does not consider that such separate periods of detention constitute
a continuing situation (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07
and 60800/08, § 79, 10 January
2012; and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC],
no. 5826/03, §§ 128-30, 22 May 2012). It will accordingly consider
whether the applicant complied with the six-month rule in respect of each such
period.
1. Detention from 9 February to 10 March
2004
As regards the applicant’s complaint about the
conditions of his detention from 9 February to 10 March 2004 in
remand prison no. IZ-66/1, the Court reiterates that the Russian legal
system does not have an effective remedy for such a complaint (see Ananyev,
cited above, § 119), and the six months
should therefore run from the end of the situation complained of. Thus,
the applicant should have submitted the complaint no later than 10 September
2004. However, as it was introduced on 8 December 2005, it was lodged out
of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1
and 4 of the Convention.
2. Detention from 15 March 2005 to
17 February 2006
The Court reiterates that during his detention
from 15 March 2005 to 17 February 2006, the applicant was placed in
two facilities. First, from 15 March to 3 August 2005 he was held in
remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg and then from 4 August
2005 to 17 February 2006 he was held in correctional facility
no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil. In the latter facility he spent the period
between 4 and 15 August 2005 in a disciplinary cell in conditions similar
to those of an ordinary prison. From 15 August 2005 to 17 February
2006 he was placed in a dormitory of a correctional settlement. The applicant
complained about the conditions of his detention in respect of the period
between 15 March and 15 August 2005 in the application form
introduced on 8 December 2005, whereas this complaint concerning the
period between 15 August 2005 and 17 February 2006 was introduced on
28 March 2011.
Having regard to the above, the Court considers
that as the applicant introduced his complaint in respect of his detention (1) from
15 March to 3 August 2005 and (2) from 4 to 15 August 2005
within six months of the end of the said period, he has complied with the
six-month criterion. The Court further notes that this part of the application is
not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of
the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
As regards the period of the applicant’s
detention from 15 August 2005 to 17 February 2006, the Court notes
that the complaint was submitted more than five years after it had ended. It
follows that it has been introduced out of time and must also be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
The Government asserted that the conditions of the
applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 from 15 March to 3 August
2005 had been in compliance Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant had
not been confined to the cell all the time. It had been open to him to meet
with his lawyer and/or family. He had been able to participate in investigative
actions and exercise his right to worship in special premises. Furthermore, he had
been able to leave the cell in order to use shower facilities and to do his laundry.
In certain remand prisons it was possible for the inmates to work in various
workshops affiliated to the prison. When describing the conditions of the
applicant’s detention in the remand prison (see paragraphs 15-17 above), the Government
relied on excerpts from the remand prison population register, official floor
plans of the cells in the remand prison. Relying on the statements provided by
the administration of correctional facility no. IK-13 where the applicant
had served his prison sentence following his conviction, the Government further
claimed that the conditions of the applicant’s detention there from 4 to
15 August 2004 had been compatible with the standards set forth in
Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant submitted that the conditions of
his detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional facility
no. IK-13 had fallen short of the standards set forth in Article 3 of
the Convention. He claimed that the Government’s description of the conditions
of his detention was not correct. He submitted that at all times during the
period under consideration he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that he
had not had his own bed or bedding. He further provided statements by the
inmates detained in the same cells as him in the remand prison and the
correctional settlement which contained a similar description of the conditions
of detention there.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(i) Conditions of detention
The general principles
relating to the conditions of detention of inmates are well established in the
Court’s case-law and have been summarised as follows (see Ananyev, cited above):
“139. The Court reiterates that Article 3
of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic
society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s
behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). Ill-treatment must
attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article
3. The assessment of this minimum is relative; it depends on all the
circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical
and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the
victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland
v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162,
Series A no. 25).
140. Ill-treatment that attains such a
minimum level of severity usually involves actual bodily injury or intense
physical or mental suffering. However, even in the absence of these, where
treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or
diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or
inferiority capable of breaking an individual’s moral and physical resistance,
it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of
Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
141. In the context of deprivation of
liberty the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the
suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable
element of suffering and humiliation connected with the detention. The State
must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with
respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the
measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding
the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the
practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately
secured (see Kudła, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov
v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
142. When assessing conditions of
detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these
conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no.
40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II). The length of the period during which a person
is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered (see, among
other authorities, Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005).”
(ii) Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts
Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported
by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied
the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”. However, such proof may follow
from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or
of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC],
no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
(b) Application of these principles to the present
case
(i) Detention from 15 March to 3 August 2005
As regards the applicant’s detention in remand
prison no. IZ-66/1 from 15 March to 3 August 2005, the Court
observes that, according to the Government’s submissions, during the period
under consideration the applicant was allocated no more than 2.30 square metres
of personal space. On certain days the overcrowding was so severe that such
space was less than 1.11 square metres per inmate. It also follows from the
information provided by Government that the applicant was not provided with an
individual sleeping place during most of the time he was detained there. For four
and a half months the applicant had to spend at least twenty-three hours per
day in such conditions.
In this respect the Court observes that in earlier
cases against Russia, where the applicants had at their
disposal less than three square metres of floor surface, it considered the
overcrowding to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation
of Article 3 (see, Ananyev, cited above, § 145). In the Court’s opinion,
these considerations hold true in the present case. It accordingly finds that the
applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 from
15 March to 4 August 2005 in overcrowded cells where he was not provided
with an individual bed amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of
Article 3 of the Convention. There has been accordingly a violation of this
provision.
In view of the above, the Court does not
consider it necessary to examine the remainder of the parties’ submissions
concerning other aspects of the conditions of the applicant’s detention during
the period in question (cf. Idalov, cited above, § 102).
(ii) Detention from 4 to 15 August 2005
The Court notes that it was established in the
course of the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant that the personal
space afforded to him during the detention in a disciplinary cell in
correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil was below 2 square
metres. The applicant had to share an 8-square metre cell together with 2 to 3
other inmates for at least 22 hours per day (see paragraph 25 above).
The Court further takes cognisance of the
domestic judicial authorities’ finding that the conditions of the applicant’s
detention fell short of the statutory requirement as regards the personal space
afforded to the detainees. It further notes the lack of privacy for detainees
using the toilet separated from the rest of the cell by a 1.1-metre high
partition and restricted out-of-cell activities. Nevertheless, taking into
account the cumulative effect of those conditions and, in particular, the brevity
of the applicant’s stay in the disciplinary cell of the correctional
settlement, the Court does not consider that the conditions of the applicant’s
detention, although far from adequate, reached the threshold of severity
required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, there has been no
violation of this provision (cf. Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 138, 17 January 2012).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant complained that he had been
detained under the prison regime from 4 to 15 August 2005 in contravention
of applicable domestic regulations. The Court will examine the complaint under
Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security
of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases
and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after
conviction by a competent court.”
The Government submitted that the applicant’s
detention during the period in question had been in compliance with the requirements
set forth in Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. They
further noted that, generally, convicts were placed in quarantine upon arrival at
a correctional facility. However, in view of the absence of quarantine quarters
in correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil, the applicant had
been placed in a prison-type cell, which fact had been in contravention of
applicable domestic regulations.
The applicant maintained his complaint.
A. Admissibility
The Court reiterates that it falls first to the
national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention. In this
regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be the victim of the
violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the
Convention (see, among
other numerous authorities, Siliadin v. France,
no. 73316/01, § 61, ECHR 2005-VII). An applicant is deprived of
his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged,
either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient
redress for, a breach of the Convention (see, for example, Scordino
v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-93, ECHR 2006-V).
. In
the present case, the Court notes that the domestic judicial authorities
unequivocally recognised that the applicant’s detention in the prison-type cell
had been unlawful (see paragraph 25 above). However, no compensation was
offered to the applicant in this respect. The domestic judicial authorities
merely stated, without much analysis or detail, that the applicant had not sustained
any physical or mental suffering resulting from the violation of his rights (see
paragraph 28 above). The Court considers that, in the
circumstances of the case, the applicant was not afforded appropriate and
sufficient redress and can still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of
Article 34 of the Convention.
The Court notes that this complaint is not
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds.
It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The Court reiterates that the expressions
“lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 §
1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to
the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among other authorities, Khudoyorov
v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 124, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
In the present case, the Court observes that the
compliance of the applicant’s detention with the applicable national laws was
in fact subject to domestic judicial review. On 23 June 2006 the District
Court found that the applicant had been unlawfully held in a prison-type cell
for ten days. The District Court’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 15 August 2006. The Court does not see any reason to depart from the
domestic courts’ findings and concludes that the national law was not complied
with. Thus, the applicant’s detention from 4 to 15 August 2005 was not “in
accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. Accordingly, there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly, the applicant raised a number of other complaints
under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention in connection with his
pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.
However, in the light of all the material in its
possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its
competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its
Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a)
and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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.”
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 450,826.54 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary damage, covering loss of earnings and damage to his health.
He also claimed EUR 534,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The Government considered the applicant’s claim
excessive and unsubstantiated. They further submitted that the finding of a
violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
The Court does not discern any causal link between
the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects
this claim. As regards the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, the
Court considers that it cannot be sufficiently compensated for by the finding
of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards
the applicant EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant did not claim costs and expenses.
Accordingly, there is no call to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints concerning the
conditions of the applicant’s detention from 15 March to 15 August
2005 and the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 4 to
15 August 2005 admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s
detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg from 15 March
to 3 August 2005;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s
detention in correctional facility no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil from 4 to 15 August
2005;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 7,500 (seven
thousand five hundred euros), to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
applicable on the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned
three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central
Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2012,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Nina
Vajić
Registrar President
