Ресурсы в тему



Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси


СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости



Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)




(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                             FIRST SECTION
                      CASE OF NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 66460/01)
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                        (Strasbourg, 2.VI.2005)
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
       In the case of Novoselov v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 12 May 2005,
       Delivers  the  following judgment, which was  adopted  on  that
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 66460/01) 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  Andrey
   Ivanovich  Novoselov,  on  27 November  2000.  He  was  represented
   before  the Court by Ms D. Vedernikova, a lawyer with the  European
   Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) in Moscow.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  Mr  P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at  the
   European Court of Human Rights.
       3. The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article
   3  of the Convention as regards the conditions of his detention  in
   facility No. 18/3 of Novorossiysk.
       4.  The  application was allocated to the First Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  By  a  decision  of  8 July 2004, the  Court  declared  the
   application partly admissible.
       6.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
       7.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the merits (Rule 59 з 1).
                               THE FACTS
                   I. The circumstances of the case
       8. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Krasnodar.
                        A. Placement in custody
                 and detention in facility No. IZ-18/3
       9.  On  26 June 1998 the applicant had a loud quarrel with  his
   neighbour  and assaulted him. Further to the neighbour's complaint,
   the police opened criminal proceedings against the applicant.
       10.  On 27 October 1998 the applicant was taken in custody  and
   placed  in investigations ward No. IZ-18/3 of Novorossiysk <*>  (ИЗ
   18/3 г. Новороссийска, "the facility").
       <*>  On  13  June  2001 facility No. 18/3 was  assigned  a  new
   number, 23/3.
       11.  On  5  November  1998 the Oktyabrskiy  District  Court  of
   Novorossiysk  found  the applicant guilty of disorderly  behaviour,
   an  offence under Article 213 з 1 of the Russian Criminal Code, and
   sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.
       12. The applicant served the sentence in the same facility.  He
   was released on 28 April 1999.
       13. The applicant stayed in cells nos. 11 and 3.
       14.   According   to   the   applicant,   each  cell  measured
   approximately  42  m   and  accommodated 42 to 51 inmates. Inmates
   took  turns  to  sleep.  Thirty sleeping places were available, of
   which  two  were  occupied  with water receptacles for washing and
   flushing  the  toilet. The water containers were needed as running
   water  was  only  available  for  one  hour  three times a day. No
   bedding   was  provided  to  inmates,  save  for  tattered  cotton
   mattresses. Between 5 November and 28 December 1998 in cell No. 11
   the  applicant  had  to  sleep without a mattress on metal plates,
   covering himself with an old, dirty and worn cotton rag.
       15.  The  Government  did  not dispute  the  cell  measurements
   suggested by the applicant. They submitted that each cell  had  had
   30  sleeping places, a full set of bedding had been distributed  to
   each  inmate and sleeping berths had been made of metal plates  and
   covered with wadded mattresses.
       16.  According to the applicant, the ventilation in  cells  was
   only  switched on for a few minutes when "inspectors"  visited  the
   facility.  Windows were covered with steel plates leaving  an  open
   slot of about 10 cm. There was no fresh air in the cells.
       17.  The Government submitted that cells had been equipped with
   ventilation.  It  was switched on and off "in accordance  with  the
   schedule  approved by the facility director" (order No.  41  of  26
   May  1998).  A  copy of the schedule has not been produced  to  the
   Court.  On  "especially  hot" days, doors were  open  to  ensure  a
   better  circulation of air. At the material time windows  had  been
   covered with metal shields which were removed in 2002.
       18.  According  to the applicant, the lavatory pan  sat  on  an
   elevation of 0.5 m above the floor. A partition of 1.1 m in  height
   separated  it  from  the rest of the cell. Occasionally  an  inmate
   hung  a  sheet  to have some privacy. According to the  Government,
   lavatory  pans were located at the entrance and separated from  the
   living  area  by a brick partition measuring 1.3 m  in  height  and
       19. According to the applicant, inmates were given one piece of
   soap  per week for the entire cell population. No laundry detergent
   was  available.  According to the Government, each inmate  received
   200  g  of  washing soap and 70 g of laundry detergent each  month.
   Bathing was possible "regularly".
       20.  The  applicant  claimed that a thick, black  and  footworn
   layer  of  dirt  had covered the floor. Inmates'  clothing  swarmed
   with  lice, spiders and other insects. Between 5 November 1998  and
   15  January  1999  cell No. 11 was not once sanitised.  Between  15
   January  and  28  April  1999  cell No.  3  was  sanitised  on  one
   occasion.  In  the  Government's view, the  sanitary  and  hygienic
   conditions  of  the cells were up to the applicable  standards  and
   insecticide was distributed every month.
       21.  According  to  the applicant, the facility  administration
   took  complaints,  requests and letters from inmates  once  a  day,
   between  4.30  and  5 a.m. According to the Government,  complaints
   and  requests were taken from inmates during the morning inspection
   of cells starting at 8 a.m.
       22.  The  applicant further submitted that the food ration  had
   consisted  of bread, millet porridge, boiled pearl barley  and  no-
   meat  soup.  In six months inmates were fed on five occasions  with
   pea soup, soup with pasta and boiled rice.
       23.  In  April  1999 the applicant contracted  scabies  and  he
   received  sulphuric and benzyl ointments to treat himself.  He  was
   not  isolated  from  other inmates. The applicant's  cellmates  who
   contracted  scabies and other skin diseases were not taken  out  of
   the  cell  either. The applicant submits 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
   and  he was treated with sulphadimisin and aspirin. From 13  to  20
   April  1999  the  applicant  underwent  outpatient  treatment   for
       24.  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.
       25. On 5 May 1999 the applicant was examined in clinic No. 1 of
   Novorossiysk  and  issued  with a certificate  confirming  that  he
   suffered from emaciation.
                    B. Proceedings for compensation
       26.  On  30  July 2002 the applicant filed a civil  action  for
   damages  against the Treasury of the Russian Federation. He claimed
   compensation  for  non-pecuniary  damage  caused  by  "inhuman  and
   degrading"  conditions  of  detention  in  facility  No.  18/3.  He
   described the conditions of his detention in detail and relied,  in
   particular, on Article 3 of the Convention.
       27.  On  1 October 2002 the Pervomayskiy District Court of  the
   Krasnodar  Region dismissed the applicant's action.  It  held  that
   the  applicant had failed to prove that the officials  of  facility
   No.  18/3  had  been  liable for pecuniary or non-pecuniary  damage
   allegedly  caused  to him. The court noted that the  applicant  had
   served  his  sentence  upon the lawful conviction  by  a  competent
   court  and, therefore, the responsibility of the treasury  was  not
       28. On 14 November 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld, on
   an appeal by the applicant, the judgment of 1 October 2002.
                       II. Relevant domestic law
       Code on Execution of Sentences (of 8 January 1997)
       29.   Persons   sentenced  to  no  longer  than   six   months'
   imprisonment  may consent to serving the sentence in investigations
   wards (Article 74 з 1).
       30.  The  norm  of  habitable  floor surface per one inmate is
   fixed  at  2.5  m  in prisons (Article 99 з 1). Inmates shall have
   individual  sleeping  places  and  bedding,  as  well  as personal
   hygiene  articles  (soap,  toothbrush,  toothpaste,  toilet paper,
   disposable shavers) (Article 99 з 2).
       Tort liability of State agencies
       31.  Article  1064  з  1  of  the Civil  Code  of  the  Russian
   Federation  provides  that  the damage  caused  to  the  person  or
   property  of  a  citizen  shall  be  compensated  in  full  by  the
   tortfeasor.  Pursuant to Article 1069, a State agency  or  a  State
   official  shall be liable to a citizen for damage caused  by  their
   unlawful  actions  or  failure  to  act.  Such  damage  is  to   be
   compensated at the expense of the federal or regional treasury.
               III. Relevant council of europe documents
       32.  The  relevant  extracts from the General  Reports  by  the
   European  Committee for the Prevention of Torture  and  Inhuman  or
   Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) read as follows:
       Extracts from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]
       "46.  Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the CPT's
   mandate.  All the services and activities within a prison  will  be
   adversely  affected if it is required to cater for  more  prisoners
   than  it  was designed to accommodate; the overall quality of  life
   in  the  establishment  will  be  lowered,  perhaps  significantly.
   Moreover,  the  level  of  overcrowding  in  a  prison,  or  in   a
   particular part of it, might be such as to be in itself inhuman  or
   degrading from a physical standpoint.
       47.  A  satisfactory programme of activities (work,  education,
   sport,  etc.)  is  of  crucial importance  for  the  well-being  of
   prisoners...  [P]risoners cannot simply be  left  to  languish  for
   weeks,  possibly  months,  locked  up  in  their  cells,  and  this
   regardless  of  how good material conditions might  be  within  the
   cells.  The  CPT  considers that one should aim  at  ensuring  that
   prisoners  in remand establishments are able to spend a  reasonable
   part  of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged  in
   purposeful activity of a varied nature...
       48.  Specific  mention should be made of outdoor exercise.  The
   requirement  that  prisoners  be  allowed  at  least  one  hour  of
   exercise  in the open air every day is widely accepted as  a  basic
   safeguard... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise  facilities
   should be reasonably spacious...
       49.   Ready  access  to  proper  toilet  facilities   and   the
   maintenance  of good standards of hygiene are essential  components
   of a humane environment...
       50. The CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it
   finds  a  combination of overcrowding, poor regime  activities  and
   inadequate  access  to  toilet/washing  facilities  in   the   same
   establishment. The cumulative effect of such conditions  can  prove
   extremely detrimental to prisoners.
       51.  It  is  also  very  important for  prisoners  to  maintain
   reasonably  good  contact  with the outside  world.  Above  all,  a
   prisoner  must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships
   with his family and close friends. The guiding principle should  be
   the  promotion  of contact with the outside world; any  limitations
   upon  such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns
   of an appreciable nature or resource considerations..."
       Extracts from the 7th General Report [CPT/Inf (97) 10]
       "13.  As the CPT pointed out in its 2nd General Report,  prison
   overcrowding  is  an issue of direct relevance to  the  Committee's
   mandate  (cf. CPT/Inf (92) 3, paragraph 46). An overcrowded  prison
   entails  cramped and unhygienic accommodation; a constant  lack  of
   privacy  (even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary
   facility);   reduced   out-of-cell  activities,   due   to   demand
   outstripping  the  staff  and  facilities  available;  overburdened
   health-care  services; increased tension and  hence  more  violence
   between  prisoners and between prisoners and staff.  This  list  is
   far from exhaustive.
       The CPT has been led to conclude on more than one occasion that
   the  adverse  effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman  and
   degrading conditions of detention..."
       Extracts from the 11th General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16]
       "28.  The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight
   penitentiary   systems  across  Europe  and  seriously   undermines
   attempts  to improve conditions of detention. The negative  effects
   of  prison  overcrowding have already been highlighted in  previous
   General Reports...
       29.  In  a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly
   in  central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists
   of  large  capacity dormitories which contain all or  most  of  the
   facilities  used  by prisoners on a daily basis, such  as  sleeping
   and  living  areas  as  well as sanitary facilities.  The  CPT  has
   objections   to   the   very  principle   of   such   accommodation
   arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are  reinforced
   when,  as  is frequently the case, the dormitories in question  are
   found  to  hold prisoners under extremely cramped and  insalubrious
   conditions... Large-capacity dormitories inevitably  imply  a  lack
   of  privacy  for  prisoners in their everyday  lives...  All  these
   problems  are  exacerbated  when  the  numbers  held  go  beyond  a
   reasonable  occupancy  level; further,  in  such  a  situation  the
   excessive  burden  on  communal facilities such  as  washbasins  or
   lavatories  and  the insufficient ventilation for so  many  persons
   will often lead to deplorable conditions.
       30.  The  CPT  frequently  encounters devices,  such  as  metal
   shutters,  slats, or plates fitted to cell windows,  which  deprive
   prisoners  of  access to natural light and prevent fresh  air  from
   entering the accommodation. They are a particularly common  feature
   of  establishments  holding  pre-trial  prisoners.  The  CPT  fully
   accepts  that  specific security measures designed to  prevent  the
   risk  of  collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required
   in  respect  of certain prisoners... [E]ven when such measures  are
   required,   they  should  never  involve  depriving  the  prisoners
   concerned  of  natural light and fresh air. The  latter  are  basic
   elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy..."
                                THE LAW
          I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
       33.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention
   about  the  conditions  of his detention in facility  No.  18/3  of
   Novorossiysk  and  the  damage to his health sustained  during  the
   detention. Article 3 reads as follows:
       "No  one  shall  be  subjected to  torture  or  to  inhuman  or
   degrading treatment or punishment."
                     A. Submissions of the parties
       34.  The  applicant  submitted that throughout the term of his
   detention,  the  facility  had been severely overcrowded, with the
   result  that each inmate had been afforded less than 1 m  of floor
   space.  The  overcrowding  produced devastating effects on him, to
   which the CPT consistently referred in its reports (in particular,
   7th General Report, з 13). An additional aspect of the crammed and
   insalubrious  conditions  was the lack of any partition separating
   the lavatory pan from the living area and, in particular, from the
   dining  table  fixed  to  the  floor  barely  one  metre away. The
   ventilation  did  not  function  most of the time and steel plates
   fitted  to  cell  windows  blocked  access of fresh air (cf., 11th
   General  Report,  з  30).  The  lack  of  adequate ventilation was
   further  aggravated by a general tolerance to smoking in the cell.
   For  the applicant, who was a non-smoker, that was another severe,
   inescapable  effect  of the overcrowding. Other factors indicating
   the  degrading  character  of the conditions of detention were the
   appalling  quality  of nutrition, the absence of bedding, swarming
   of  insects,  and  the  inadequate  supplies of detergents. In the
   detention  the  applicant  contracted  scabies;  he was given some
   treatment  but  was  not isolated from other inmates. He twice had
   high fever and by the time of his release, he lost 15 kg in weight
   and was generally exhausted.
       35. In support of his submissions the applicant referred to the
   reports  "on  situation with human rights in the Krasnodar  Region"
   produced  by the regional NGO, the "Krasnodar Human Rights Centre",
   in   1999   and  2000,  that  had  recorded  general  problems   in
   penitentiary  institutions  in  the  Krasnodar  Region,   such   as
   overcrowding,  the  inadequate quality of  food,  the  shortage  of
   medical equipment and medicines and the spread of tuberculosis  and
   AIDS.  The applicant produced a handwritten statement by Mr  Vdovin
   who  had been detained in cells nos. 23 and 76 of the same facility
   from  28 November 1998 to May 1999. The applicant also referred  to
   the medical certificate of 5 May 1999 (see paragraph 25 above).
       36.  The  Government  conceded  that  the  applicant  had  been
   detained  "during  the  period when the detention  facilities  were
   overcrowded".  They  submitted  that  "the  overcrowding  of   that
   detention facility (as well as of many other similar facilities  at
   the  material  time) was caused by objective reasons (such  as  the
   high  delinquency  rate, the lack of State  funding  sufficient  to
   maintain  the standard of floor space for all detainees)". However,
   in  their  view,  the  facility  administration  applied  its  best
   efforts  to ensure the conditions of detention compatible with  the
   requirements  of  Russian laws. Finally, they  submitted  that  the
   domestic  courts had rightly refused to award compensation  to  the
   applicant  as no fault on the part of the facility personnel  could
   have been established.
       37.  The  Government claimed that the applicant had  failed  to
   support  his  allegations of degrading treatment  with  appropriate
   evidence.  There  is  no  indication that the  detention  adversely
   affected his health. The issuing of a medical certificate of 5  May
   1999  is not recorded in the registration files of clinic No. 1  of
   Novorossiysk.  Nor  did the applicant produce a  copy  of  relevant
   pages of his medical record or any other certificates showing  that
   he had contracted scabies or suffered from emaciation.
                       B. The Court's assessment
       38.  As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 3 of  the
   Convention  enshrines  one  of  the  most  fundamental  values   of
   democratic  society.  It  prohibits in absolute  terms  torture  or
   inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective  of  the
   circumstances  and  the  victim's  behaviour  (Labita   v.   Italy,
   judgment of 6 April 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions  2000-
   IV,  з  119).  However, to fall under Article 3 of the  Convention,
   ill-treatment  must  attain  a  minimum  level  of  severity.   The
   assessment  of  this  minimum level of  severity  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 ({Valasinas}
   <*> v. Lithuania, No. 44558/98, зз 100 - 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
       39.  The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and
   humiliation  involved  must in any event go beyond  the  inevitable
   element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form  of
   legitimate treatment or punishment. Under this provision the  State
   must  ensure  that  a  person is detained in conditions  which  are
   compatible with respect for his 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 ({Valasinas}, cited above, з  102;  {Kudla}  v.
   Poland  [GC],  No.  30210/96, з 94, ECHR 2000-XI).  When  assessing
   conditions   of  detention,  one  must  consider  their  cumulative
   effects as well as the applicant's specific allegations (Dougoz  v.
   Greece,  judgment  of  6 March 2001, Reports 2001-II,  з  46).  The
   duration of detention is also a relevant factor.
       40.  The Court notes that in the present case the parties  have
   disputed  the  actual  conditions of the applicant's  detention  at
   facility No. IZ-18/3 of Novorossiysk. However, in the present  case
   the   Court  does  not  consider  it  necessary  to  establish  the
   truthfulness  of each and every allegation of the parties,  because
   it  may  find  a violation of Article 3 on the basis of  the  facts
   that   have   been  presented  or  undisputed  by  the   respondent
   Government, for the following reasons.
       41.  The  main  characteristic,  which  the  parties  have  in
   principle  agreed  upon, is the number of inmates who were held in
   the  applicant's cells at the material time. The applicant alleged
   that  the  cells  had  been  overpopulated; the Government did not
   dispute  this  allegation  (see  paragraphs  15  and 36 above). It
   appears  that the applicant spent the entire six-month term of his
   detention  in  cells that measured 42 m  and accommodated up to 51
   inmates,  for  whom 28 or 30 bunk beds were available. He was thus
   afforded  less  than  1 m  of personal space and shared a sleeping
   place  with  other  inmates, taking turns with them to get a rest.
   Save  for  one  hour  of daily outside exercise, the applicant was
   confined  to  his cell for 23 hours a day. In these circumstances,
   the  extreme lack of space 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.
       42.  In  this  connection  the Court recalls that in the Peers
   case even a much bigger cell - namely that of 7 m  for two inmates
   -  was  noted  as  a  relevant  aspect  for finding a violation of
   Article  3,  albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with
   the established lack of ventilation and lighting (Peers v. Greece,
   No.  28524/95,  зз  70  -  72,  ECHR  2001-III).  The  applicant's
   situation  was  also comparable with that in the Kalashnikov case,
   where  the  applicant  had been confined to a space measuring less
   than  2  m .  In  that  case  the Court held that such a degree of
   overcrowding  raised  in  itself  an  issue under Article 3 of the
   Convention  (Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, зз 96 - 97, ECHR
   2002-VI). By contrast, in some other cases no violation of Article
   3  was  found,  as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities
   was  compensated  by  the  freedom  of  movement  enjoyed  by  the
   detainees  during  the  day-time ({Valasinas}, cited above, зз 103
   and 107; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), No. 30138/02, 16 September
       43.  Hence, as in those cases, the Court considers the  extreme
   lack  of  space  to  be  the  focal  point  for  its  analysis   of
   compatibility  of the conditions of the applicant's detention  with
   Article  3. 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 the feelings of  fear,  anguish  and
   inferiority  capable  of humiliating and debasing  him  (Peers  and
   Kalashnikov,  cited  above, loc. cit.;  see  also  the  CPT's  11th
   General Report [CPT/Inf (2001) 16], з 29).
       44.  Furthermore,  while  in  the present  case  it  cannot  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  notes  the  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  (see
   paragraphs  17  and  23  above).  These  aspects,  while   not   in
   themselves   capable  of  justifying  the  notion  of   "degrading"
   treatment,  are  relevant in addition to the focal  factor  of  the
   severe   overcrowding,  to  show  that  the  applicant's  detention
   conditions went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3 of  the
       45.  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  reiterates
   that,  although the question whether the purpose of  the  treatment
   was  to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into
   account,  the absence of any such purpose cannot exclude a  finding
   of  violation  of  Article 3 (Peers v. Greece,  cited  above,  loc.
   cit.;  Kalashnikov v. Russia, cited above, з 101).  Even  if  there
   had  been no fault on the part of the facility officials, it should
   be  emphasised  that  the  Governments  are  answerable  under  the
   Convention for the acts of any State agency since what is in  issue
   in  all  cases before the Court is the international responsibility
   of  the  State  (Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of  20  March  1997,
   Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, з 40).
       46.  The  Court therefore finds that there has been a violation
   of Article 3 of the Convention.
            II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
       47. 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
       48.  The  applicant claimed 12,000 euros (EUR)  in  respect  of
   compensation  for non-pecuniary damage. He submitted  that  adverse
   physical  and mental effects of degrading conditions of  detention,
   such  as  physical emaciation and feelings of humiliation, distress
   and  anxiety,  cannot be compensated solely by  the  finding  of  a
   violation. He referred to comparable awards in the cases  of  Peers
   v.  Greece  (No. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III, 5,000,000 Greek  drachmas
   [approximately  EUR  14,600])  and McGlinchey  and  Others  v.  the
   United Kingdom (No. 50390/99, ECHR 2003-V, EUR 11,500).
       49.  The  Government  contested his  claims  as  excessive  and
   unjust.  In  their  view, an eventual award  should  be  made  with
   regard  to that in the case of Kalashnikov v. Russia, in which  the
   Court  awarded  EUR  5,000 as compensation for  violations  of  the
   applicant's  rights  under  Articles  3,  5  and  6,  although   Mr
   Kalashnikov's term of detention was much longer.
       50.  The  Court accepts that the applicant suffered humiliation
   and  distress because of the degrading conditions of his detention.
   Making  its  assessment  on  an equitable  basis  and  taking  into
   account, in particular, the term of the applicant's detention,  the
   Court  awards  the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of  non-pecuniary
   damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
                         B. Costs and expenses
       51.  The  applicant claimed 1,150 euros (EUR) for 23  hours  of
   work  of  Ms  Vedernikova in Moscow, 1,000 British  pounds  for  10
   hours  of  work of Messrs Leach and Bowring in London,  and  16,590
   Russian  roubles (RUR) in respect of their travel expenses relating
   to  their  visit  to Krasnodar for a meeting with him.  He  further
   claimed  20  per  cent of the amount awarded, which  would  be  due
   under  a  contingency agreement with Mr Shamparov  who  represented
   him in the domestic proceedings.
       52.  The  Government contested the claim for costs. They  noted
   that  the  power  of  attorney issued to Mr Shamparov  had  already
   expired   and   that  London  counsel  were  not  the   applicant's
   representatives before the Court.
       53. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled
   to  reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so  far  as  it
   has  been  shown  that  these have been  actually  and  necessarily
   incurred and were reasonable as to quantum.
       54.  As  regards the domestic proceedings, it appears  that  Mr
   Shamparov  offered legal advice to the applicant in  many  domestic
   proceedings,  to  which  the  applicant  was  a  party.  Since  the
   applicant's other complaints were declared inadmissible at  earlier
   stages,  the  Court  considers it reasonable to take  into  account
   only  the  fees  paid  to  Mr Shamparov in  the  civil  proceedings
   concerning  compensation for inhuman conditions  of  detention.  On
   the  basis  of  documents in its possession, the Court  finds  that
   these  fees  amounted  to RUR 12,000, which amount  it  awards  the
   applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable thereon.
       55.  As regards the Strasbourg proceedings, the Court considers
   that  the  expenses claimed in respect of London counsel  have  not
   been shown to have been necessarily incurred. Having regard to  the
   criteria  laid down in its case-law cited above, the  Court  awards
   EUR   1,300  in  respect  of  Ms  Vedernikova's  legal  and  travel
   expenses,  plus  any  tax that may be chargeable  on  this  amount,
   payable  into  the  bank  account  of  the  European  Human  Rights
   Advocacy Centre in Moscow.
                          C. Default interest
       56.  The  Court  considers  it  appropriate  that  the  default
   interest  should  be  based on the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank, to which should be added three  percentage
       1.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3  of  the
       2. Holds
       (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,  within
   three  months  from  the date on which the judgment  becomes  final
   according  to  Article  44  з  2 of the Convention,  the  following
           (i)  EUR  3,000  (three  thousand  euros)  in  respect  of
       non-pecuniary  damage, to be converted into Russian roubles at
       the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
           (ii)  RUR  12,000  (twelve  thousand  Russian  roubles) in
       respect  of  costs  and  expenses  incurred  in  the  domestic
           (iii)  EUR  1,300  (one  thousand  three hundred euros) in
       respect  of  costs  and  expenses  incurred  in the Strasbourg
       proceedings,  to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate
       applicable  at  the  date of settlement and paid into the bank
       account  of  the  European  Human  Rights  Advocacy  Centre in
           (iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
       (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;
       3.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim  for  just
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing  on  2  June  2005,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN

<<< Назад




Новости сайта Тюрьма

Hosted by uCoz