Музыченко и другие против России
К разделу "
Пополнения базы анонсируются в ветке Пополнение подборки полезных судебных решений, на обновления которой можно подписаться штатными инструментами форума.
Музыченко и другие против Российской Федерации
(Muzychenko and Others v. Russia)
(N 54675/12, 76168/12, 56974/13, 10613/14,
18259/14, 36650/14, 12127/15 и 22190/15)
По материалам Постановления
Европейского Суда по правам человека
от 6 октября 2016 года
(вынесено Комитетом III Секции)
<*> Перевод с английского Г.А. Николаева.
Заявители (восемь человек) жаловались на их бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей. Первый и второй заявители также жаловались на отсутствие эффективных средств правовой защиты, второй заявитель - на чрезмерно длительное содержание под стражей, а пятый - также на условия этапирования в суд и из суда.
Европейский Суд единогласно постановил, что в данном деле власти Российской Федерации нарушили требования статьи 3 Конвенции (запрещение пыток) в отношении всех заявителей, статьи 13 Конвенции (право на эффективное средство правовой защиты) в отношении первого и второго заявителей и пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции (право на свободу и личную неприкосновенность) в отношении второго заявителя, и обязал государство-ответчика выплатить заявителям 67 700 евро в качестве компенсации материального ущерба, морального вреда и судебных расходов <*>.
<*> Заявителям были присуждены различные суммы от 5 000 до 20 800 евро.
"Российская хроника Европейского Суда", 2017, N 1(41)
Примечание к документу
Информация о Постановлении ЕСПЧ от 06.10.2016 по делу "Музыченко и другие против Российской Федерации (Muzychenko and Others v. Russia)" (жалобы N 54675/12, 76168/12, 56974/13, 10613/14, 18259/14, 36650/14, 12127/15 и 22190/15)
По делу обжалуются бесчеловечные условия содержания под стражей, отсутствие эффективных средств правовой защиты, чрезмерно длительное содержание под стражей, условия этапирования в суд и из суда. По делу допущено нарушение требований статей 3, 13 и пункта 3 статьи 5 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF MUZYCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 54675/12, 76168/12, 56974/13, 10613/14, 18259/14, 36650/14, 12127/15 and 22190/15)
<*> This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Muzychenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helena , President,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
- 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.
- The applications were communicated to the Russian Government («the Government»).
- Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations submitted in certain cases, the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications. The declarations are therefore rejected.
- The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
- The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
- Joinder of the applications
- Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
- Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
- The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. 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.»
- 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, 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 a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are «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, v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 39, 7 April 2005, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 145 — 147 and 149).
- In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012 and Butko v. Russia, no. 32036/10, §§ 54 — 64, 12 November 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
- 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.
- These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. Remaining complaints
- Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in accordance with 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 findings in in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103 — 108, 22 May 2012; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, cited above, § 119; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108 — 111, 27 November 2012.
- 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.»
- Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 169 — 174, and Butko v. Russia, cited above, § 68), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
- 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,
- Decides to join the applications;
- Rejects the Government’s request to strike certain applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
- Declares the applications admissible;
- Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;
- Holds that there has been a violation as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
(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 period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
LIST OF APPLICATIONS RAISING COMPLAINTS UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION (INADEQUATE CONDITIONS OF DETENTION)
Date of introduction
Date of birth
|Representative name and location||
Start and end date
|Sq. m. per inmate||Specific grievances||Other complaints under well-established case-law||
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros) <1>
Aleksandr Nikolayevich MUZYCHENKO
IVS Gvardeyskiy District Kaliningrad Region
20/02/2012 to 21/02/2012
|1.4 m2||Tuberculosis-infected inmates in the cell, poor lighting, no individual sleeping place, no ventilation, no outdoor exercises.||Art. 13 — lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention||5,000|
Serik Kanatkaliyevich ULZHATAYEV
Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich
IZ-30/2 Narimanov Astrakhan Region
26/12/2011 to 21/05/2012
4 month(s) and
The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place, lack of ventilation, cells cold in winter and hot up to 50 degrees Celsius in summer, infestation with bedbugs, spiders, cockroaches, mosquitoes and mice, lack of separation of toilet from living area, dinner table located close to toilet, dim electric light on 24/7, cement walking yards of 15 — 20 sq.m., daily walk for
30 minutes, weekly shower for 10 — 15 minutes, shower with cement floor and ceiling; walls covered with fungus, insufficient number of shower heads.
Art. 5 (3) — excessive length of pre-trial detention,
Art. 13 — lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
More than 4 year(s) and
|2.3 m2||The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place, lack of ventilation, cells cold in winter and hot up to 50 degrees Celsius in summer, infestation with bedbugs, spiders, cockroaches, mosquitoes, mice and rats, lack of separation of toilet from living area, dinner table located close to toilet, dim electric light on 24/7, cement walking yards of 15 — 20 sq.m., daily walk for 30 minutes, weekly shower for 10 — 15 minutes, shower with cement floor and ceiling; walls covered with fungus, insufficient number of shower heads.|
Aleksey Ivanovich BUSOV
30/12/2013 to 05/05/2014
4 month(s) and 6 day(s)
|1.5 m2||No ventilation, lack of individual sleeping place in certain cells, lack of light, no heating in disciplinary cells.||5,000|
Aleksandr Valeryevich MEDVEDEV
19/08/2013 to 23/09/2013
1 month(s) and
|1.25 m2||Cell no 260 measured 10 sq. m, 8 sleeping places for 7 to 8 inmates, metal beds rusty and dilapidated, bedding dirty and worn-out, cell infected with bed-bugs, lice and cockroaches. Inmates not provided with cleaning products, cell had one window which was covered with metal bars and could not be opened, no air conditioning system; cell was damp, stuffy and dark inside. The applicant had limited access to natural light and fresh air. Passive smoking, detainees had to wash their clothes in the cells, creating excessive humidity. Lavatory pan just 0.5 meters away from the table, separated from the living area by a partition less than one meter-high. Poor quality of water, food scarce and of poor quality, shower once every seven to ten days, for which they were afforded between five and ten minutes, the shower room was dirty.||5,000|
Denis Vladimirovich LAVRENTYEV
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
More than 3 year(s) and
7 month(s) and
|1.5 m2||Mould on the walls, humidity, concrete floor, no ventilation, no hot water, passive smoking, lavatory pan in the cell not separated from the living area, around-the-clock light in the cell, poor quality of food, court yard too small and without benches, guards open and search all the food sent by the detainees’ relatives.||Art. 3 — inadequate conditions of detention during transport||16,600|
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich SOROKIN
IZ-47/ St Petersburg
31/03/2013 to 30/04/2014
1 year(s) and
1 month(s) and
From 31 March 2013 till 15 April 2013 applicant was detained in cell no340-A measuring 8 sq. m and housing 4 persons. Toilet near the table. One shower per week.
Two weeks later the applicant was confined in cell no353 which was similar to the previous one.
Two weeks after that he was confined in cell no287 which was similar to the previous one.
In the end of November 2013 he was confined in cell no 614 which was two square larger than the previous one.
From the end of January 2014 till 30 April 2014 he was confined in cell no259 where there was no hot water.
Ivan Petrovich SAFONOV
IVS Plesetskiy District of the Arkhangelsk Region
15/09/2014 to 18/09/2014
|2 m2||Toilet facilities out of order, no chairs or benches, no ventilation, passive smoking, no radio or TV set, rats and insects in the cell, food of poor quality.||5,000|
Aleksey Mikhaylovich SHATALOV
IZ-47/1 St Petersburg
29/11/2014 to 16/06/2015
6 month(s) and
|1.75 m2||No ventilation, humidity, poor lighting, lack of potable water, no partition between the lavatory and the living area, 50 minutes daily outdoor exercise.||5,000|
<*> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.