Постановление ЕСПЧ от 23.03.2023
Актуально на 04.11.2026.
Как цитировать: Постановление ЕСПЧ от 23.03.2023. 48041/16. 23.03.2023. https://bukva.ai/docs/postanovlenie-4804116
<Дело Багаутдинов и другие (Bagautdinov and Others) против России> (жалоба № 48041/16 и 17 других) [англ.]
(Вместе с <Перечнем заявлений>)
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF BAGAUTDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 48041/16 and 17 others -
see appended list)
<*> This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bagautdinov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
L\partial tif Hüseynov , President,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
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 indicated in the appended table.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. Joinder of the applications
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. The Government's request to strike out applications Nos. 77574/17 and 1989/18 under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in cases nos. 77574/17 and 1989/18 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue examination of the cases (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government's request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).
III. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. 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, Muršiæ v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016; Kud³a 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 extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding 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 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevièius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36 — 40, 7 April 2005).
9. In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. 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.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. Other alleged violations under well-established case-law
12. The applicant in application no. 15724/18 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees).
V. Remaining complaints
13. In addition, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined these applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15. Finally, some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of remedies to complain about poor conditions of detention. The Court does not consider it necessary to examine the complaint separately (see, for similar approach most recently, Satyr and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 70387/16 and 14 others, 12 January 2023).
VI. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
16. 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.»
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014 and Mozharov and Others v. Russia, no. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government's request to strike applications nos. 77574/17 and 1989/18 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declaration which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about poor detention conditions, and dismisses the remainder of applications as inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 March 2023, 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 AFTER CONVICTION)