Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.07.2010 «Дело Недайборщ (Nedayborshch) против России» [англ.]

t seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005). Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the materials in its possession, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
32. The parties also agreed upon the fact that there was no running water or toilet in the cells and that the inmates had no table to eat off, or mattresses to put on the bunk beds. Shower facilities were non-existent and the outdoor exercise was of extremely limited duration because of the excessive number of inmates. The absence of such basic facilities as running water and a lavatory pan was apparently the consequence of an outdated design project of the Kopeysk IVS and the Court notes with satisfaction that it was taken out of service. However, at the material time the applicant had to endure conditions of detention which must have caused him considerable mental and physical suffering, diminishing his human dignity. In addition, the Court notes that the applicant appears to have contracted tuberculosis during his detention. The conditions of the applicant's detention thus amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, even in the absence of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant on the part of any domestic authority.
33. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant's detention in the Kopeysk IVS.

II. Application of Article 41 of the Convention

34. 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

35. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
36. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to submit any documents in support of his claim.
37. The Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, No. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, No. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, No. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, No. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006). It considers, however, the applicant's claim excessive. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 9,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

B. Costs and expenses

38. The applicant did not claim any costs or expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum under this head.

C. Default interest

39. 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 points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant's detention in the Kopeysk IVS;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordan



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet