Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.04.2010 «Дело Лутохин (Lutokhin) против России» [англ.]

VI).
55. Having regard to the above principles and the fact that the Government did not submit any convincing relevant data, the Court accepts the applicant's argument that his cell in the temporary confinement ward had been severely overcrowded.
56. As regards the conditions in the remand centre from 16 April 2001 until 11 March 2003, the Court will concentrate on the allegations that have been presented or are undisputed by the respondent Government (see §§ 18 - 27 above).
57. The Court observes that the applicant was detained in six cells
2
that measured 8 m and had six sleeping places. It follows that the design
2
capacity of these cells allowed 1,3 m of floor area per inmate. Given the
fact that each cell was equipped with bunks, a dining table, a sink and a
lavatory pan which took their space, it appears that the actual living area
per inmate was dramatically small. This state of affairs in itself
constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see § 51 above).
58. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the material submitted by the parties and the findings above, the Court concludes that, though not ill-intended, the detaining of the applicant for approximately one year and eleven months in a cramped cell twenty-four hours a day, save for one-hour daily walk, must have caused him such intense physical discomfort and mental suffering which the Court considers amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
59. There has accordingly been a violation of this provision.

II. Other alleged violations of the Convention

60. The applicant raised various complaints, regarding the criminal proceedings against him, under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
61. Having considered his submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols.
62. It follows that these parts of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

63. 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

64. The applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
65. He also claimed 297,350 roubles (RUB) and 4,000 dollars (USD) in respect of pecuniary damage that he linked to university's fees that he had lost because of his arrest, the value of parcels he had received from his relatives while in detention and, finally, costs for a dental treatment he had had after his release.
66. The Government considered the applicant's claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages unsubstantiated and excessive respectively.
67. The Court notes that it has found in the present case a violation of Article 3 on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary confinement ward and the remand centre during one year and eleven months. It considers that the applicant's suffering cannot be compensated for by a mere finding of a violation. At the same time, the amount claimed by the a

> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8