GATAGAZHEV A LUGACHEV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GATAGAZHEV AND LUGACHEV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 43813/16)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

1 December 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gatagazhev and Lugachev v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 July 2016.

2. The applicants were represented by Ms Y.V. Yefremova, a lawyer practising in Moscow.

3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime.

6. On 26 July 2021 the applicants’ representative informed the Registry that the second applicant, Mr Lugachev, had died and that his alleged civil partner Ms Klachkova expressed her wish to continue the proceedings as his heir.

THE LAW

1. THE decision TO STRIKE OUT the part of the aPPLICATION

7. The Court takes note of the death of Mr Lugachev and of the wish of his alleged partner, Ms Klachkova, to pursue the proceedings he had initiated.

8. The Government did not make any submissions in this respect.

9. The Court must establish whether Ms Klachkova has standing to pursue the application following the applicant’s death.

10. Where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references).

11. Having examined the materials submitted, the Court is unable to conclude that Ms Klachkova has demonstrated sufficient interest in pursuing the present application. There is no sufficient evidence confirming close relationships between Ms Klachkova and the applicant (see, by contrast, Ivko v. Russia, no. 30575/08, §§ 51-54, 64-70, 15 December 2015). She provided no evidence, such as a succession certificate, to confirm her right to inherit from the late applicant or the acceptance of the late applicant’s succession or any statement confirming that she had accepted the succession (see, by contrast, Romankevič v. Lithuania, no. 25747/07, § 15, 2 December 2014) or detailed information on the applicant’s and her family situation which could be of relevance in that particular case (see, by contrast, Andreyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 76737/01, 16 October 2003).

12. Against this background, the Court finds that the request to pursue the proceedings was submitted by a person who has failed to provide evidence of her status as a heir of the late applicant and of her legitimate interest to pursue the application (see, mutatis mutandis, Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009; Moisă v. Romania (dec.), no. 30608/02, 16 November 2010; and V.B. v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 71569/14, 14 December 2021).

13. Lastly, the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of the present case in the part of the complaints raised by the late applicant.

14. In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part related to late Mr Lugachev and concludes that the application in that part should be struck out of its list of cases.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention

15. Mr Gatagazhev complained of the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

16. The general principles regarding the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the context of deprivation of liberty, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of the Court’s previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-100, 20 October 2016, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

17. In the leading case of N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

18. 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s rights were violated.

19. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20. 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.”

21. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, N.T., cited above, § 61), the Court considers it reasonable to award Mr Gatagazhev the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of his claims for just satisfaction.

22. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to strike out of its list of cases the application in the part brought by late Mr Lugachev;
2. Declares the complaints raised by Mr Gatagazhev admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime in respect of Mr Gatagazhev;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay Mr Gatagazhev, within three months, the amount 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

5. Dismisses the remainder of Mr Gatagazhev’s claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.