European Court of Human Rights

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 48826/08, 54526/10, 43512/13, 51512/13, 58203/13 and 68362/14)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

(Revision)

 

STRASBOURG

26 March 2020

 

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

In the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia (request for revision of the judgment of 22 June 2017),

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

          Alena Poláčková, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2020,

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.

2.  In a judgment delivered on 22 June 2017, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inadequate conditions of the applicants’ detention and a violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 13 as regards other complaints raised by some of the applicants under the well-established case-law of the Court.

3.  On 5 July 2017 the Russian Government (“the Government”) asked the Court under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court to revise the judgment in the part concerning application no. 58203/13, Cherepakhin v. Russia, lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention by a Russian national, Mr Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Cherepakhin (“the applicant”), on 27 August 2013. The Government submitted that their observations on the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention had been left without consideration.

4.  On 22 March 2018 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to communicate the Government’s request to the applicant and, at the same time, ask the parties for renewed observations on the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. THE COURT’S ORGINAL JUDGMENT

5.  In its judgment of 22 June 2017 the Court, having received no observations from the Government concerning application no. 58203/13 Cherepakhin v. Russia, found a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention between 22 December 2011 and 11 February 2014 in two detention facilities (IVS Rostov-on-Don and IZ-61/3 Novocherkassk) and in view of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR REVISION

6.  On 5 July 2017 the Government asked the Court to review the judgment in the case of Maznev and Others in the part concerning application no. 58203/13 Cherepakhin v. Russia, arguing that their observations concerning the applicant’s failure to lodge with the Court his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention within the six-month time-limit provided for under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, had not been taken into account by the Court.

7.  Having examined the Government’s request under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court entitling a party to request the Court to revise its judgment, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, and in the light of principles regulating the procedure for revision of final judgments set out in the Court’s case-law (see Damir Sibgatullin v. Russia (revision), no. 1413/05, §§ 11-22, 28 May 2014, and McGinley and Egan v. the United Kingdom (revision), nos. 21825/93 and 23414/94, § 30, ECHR 2000‑I, with further references), the Court considers that the Government’s request should be granted. It notes that the observations referred to by the Government in their request indeed had been uploaded to a secure website designed for this purpose but, due to a clerical mistake, had not reached the Court’s Central Bureau and the Registry’s legal division in charge of the case.

8.  The Court emphasises that its decision to revise the original judgment in the part concerning application no. 58203/13 Cherepakhin v. Russia, as well as the new findings below concerning admissibility and merits of the application are strictly limited to application no 58203/13. The Court’s original judgment in the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia (nos. 48826/08 and 5 others, 22 June 2017), in the part concerning all other applications jointly examined in it, therefore, remains unchanged and unaffected by the present revision judgment.

III. THE COURT’S NEW ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION

9.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

A.     The Government’s request to strike out some the applicant’s complaints under article 37 § 1 of the Convention

10.  The applicant complained about poor conditions of his detention in a number of facilities in which he had been held between 22 December 2011 and 15 September 2014. He also complained about excessive length of his pre-trial detention. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 5

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

11.  On 16 July 2018 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints, having acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to inadequate conditions of detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg where the applicant had been detained from 30 January 2012 to 15 September 2014, and a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant EUR 12,600 (twelve thousand six hundred euros) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in the part related to the poor conditions of the applicants’ detention in remand prison no. IZ‑66/1 in Yekaterinburg between 30 January 2012 and 15 September 2014 and his excessively long detention on remand in violation of the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

12.  On 21 August 2018 the applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.

13.  The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, this part of the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application in this part.

14.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in the part covered by the friendly settlement.

B.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

15.  The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of his detention in a number of other facilities.

16.  The Government contested the factual information provided by the applicant concerning facilities and periods of his detention. They submitted, in particular, that the applicant had not been detained in remand prison no. IZ-34/1 in Volgograd between 15 and 22 January 2012, as he alleged, but that he had actually been in the remand prison of correctional colony no. 9 in the Volgograd Region from 12 to 20 January 2012. The applicant did not contest that information. In the absence of any complaints on his part about the conditions of detention in the latter facility, the period at issue (between 12 and 20 January 2012) is, therefore, outside the scope of the Court’s examination.

17.  Given that the continuous situation of the applicant’s detention had been interrupted by his stay in the facility of which he did not complain, and taking into account that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 27 August 2013, his complaint about the conditions of his detention before 12 January 2012 is belated (see Abdilla v. Malta, no. 36199/15, §§ 27-29, 17 July 2018, and Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 31, 25 July 2017).

18.  As regards the remaining part of the application, namely the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-73/1 in the Ulyanovsk Region during a week between 21 and 27 January 2012, the Government contended that the applicant had been afforded adequate personal space, had had an individual sleeping place, proper access to hygienic facilities and had been allowed daily outdoor exercise. They relied on the information provided by the remand prison governor and excerpts from remand prison’s population registers accounting for the applicant’s detention. The applicant did not dispute this information.

19.  Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions and duration of the applicant’s detention in detention facility no. IZ-73/1, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

20.  In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of detention in respect of facility no. IZ-73/1 is manifestly ill-founded.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to revise the judgment in the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia (nos. 48826/08 and 5 others, 22 June 2017) in the part concerning application no. 58203/13, Cherepakhin v. Russia;

2.      Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions in detention facility no. IZ-66/1 and the excessive length of the applicant’s detention, as specified in the Government’s unilateral declaration;

3.      Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 March 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Liv Tigerstedt                                                                 Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President