EVRM-Hof veroordeelt Rusland voor slechte toestand gevangenissen (en)

 

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Novoselov v. Russia (application no. 66460/01).

The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000 (euros) EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 12,000 Russian roubles plus EUR 1,300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

• 1. 

  Principal facts

The applicant, Andrey Ivanovich Novoselov, is a Russian national, born in 1961 and living in Krasnodar (Russia).

On 27 October 1998 he was taken into custody and placed in an investigations ward of a prison in Novorossiysk (Russia), (facility no. IZ-18/3).

On 5 November 1998 he was found guilty of disorderly behaviour and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, which he served in the same prison. He was released on 28 April 1999.

The parties did not dispute that the applicant was kept in cells measuring approximately 42 m2, which accommodated 42 to 51 inmates, with 30 available sleeping places, although the applicant claimed that two were used for the water receptacles for washing and flushing the toilet. Neither was it disputed that the inmates' toilet was within the cell.

The applicant also maintained that: inmates had no bedding; he had to sleep without a mattress for over a month; the ventilation system in the cells was only switched on for a few minutes for inspectors' visits; there was no fresh air in the cells; metal plates covered most of the window; a thick, black layer of dirt covered the floor; and, inmates' clothing swarmed with lice, spiders and other insects.

The Russian Government submitted that: inmates had a full set of bedding, cells were ventilated, sanitary conditions in the cells were up to the applicable standards and insecticide was distributed every month.

In April 1999 the applicant contracted scabies and was not isolated from other inmates. Neither were his cellmates who contracted scabies and other skin diseases taken out of the cell. The applicant submitted that tuberculosis-infected inmates spent, on several occasions, a few days in his cell. According to the Government, infected inmates were isolated in a special wing. The applicant twice fell ill with a high temperature. From 13 to 20 April 1999 he underwent outpatient treatment for dermatitis.

By the time of his release, the applicant had lost 15 kilograms in weight, he felt short of breath while walking, tired easily, could not run, and suffered from pustules and itching all over his body. On 5 May 1999 he was medically examined and issued with a certificate confirming that he suffered from emaciation.

On 30 July 2002 the applicant filed a civil action claiming compensation for the "inhuman and degrading" conditions of his detention. His action was dismissed on 1 October 2002 by Pervomayskiy District Court, which held that the applicant had failed to prove that the prison officials were liable. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.

• 2. 

  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 November 2000 and was declared partly admissible on 8 July 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,

Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian),

Anatoli Kovler (Russian),

Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),

Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),

Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),

Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges,

and also Soren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

• 3. 

  Summary of the judgment [2]

Complaint

The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention and the consequent damage to his health, relying on Article 3 of the Convention.

Decision of the Court

The Court observed that the parties had disputed the actual conditions of the applicant's detention. However, they had agreed in principle on the number of inmates who were held in the applicant's cells at the material time. It appeared that the applicant spent the entire six-month term of his detention in cells measuring 42 m2 which accommodated up to 51 inmates, for whom 28 or 30 bunk beds were available. He was thus given less than 1 m2 of personal space and shared a sleeping place with other inmates, taking turns with them to rest. Save for one hour of daily outside exercise, the applicant was confined to his cell for 23 hours a day.

The fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him.

While it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that the ventilation, heating, lighting or sanitary conditions in the facility were unacceptable from the point of view of Article 3, the Court nonetheless noted the Russian Government's admissions that the cell windows were covered with metal shutters blocking access of fresh air and natural light and that the applicant had twice fallen ill with fever and contracted dermatitis while in detention. Those factors, coupled with the severe overcrowding, meant that the applicant's detention conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3.

Finally, as regards the Government's submissions that the overcrowding was due to objective reasons and that the facility officials could not be held liable for it, the Court reiterated that, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim was a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose could not exclude a finding of violation of Article 3. Even if there had been no fault on the part of the prison officials, it had to be emphasised that the Russian Government were answerable under the Convention for the acts of any State agency since what was in question in all cases before the Court was the international responsibility of the State.

The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3.

***

The Court's judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)

Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)

Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)

Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court's judgments.

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court