RUDYKH A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF RUDYKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 55659/14 and 13 others – see appended lists)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

19 July 2022

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

In the case of Rudykh and Others v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications 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 twelve Russian nationals, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended tables;

the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning handcuffing and other aspects of their detention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 26 April 2022,

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

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns different aspects of detention of the applicants convicted to life imprisonment and in particular their regular handcuffing.

THE FACTS

2. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended tables.

3. The Government were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Common facts

5. Most of the applicants are life convicts whose detention involved, among other restrictions, regular handcuffing (for more details see Appendix I). While most of the applicants did not appeal against their handcuffing, three applicants below challenged the regular application of handcuffs before the domestic courts. In these proceedings, the latter made the following findings.

2. challenges to the use of handcuffs
   1. Mr Rudykh (application no. 55659/14)

6. On 25 May 2015 the Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted in part the applicant’s claim concerning his routine handcuffing. At the hearing the official representative of the administration of the IK-56 confirmed regular application of handcuffs to the applicant and recognised that the handcuffing of life convicts in that detention facility was not documented. On 23 December 2015 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 May 2015 on appeal.

7. On 22 November 2016 the Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region again found for the applicant in a similar claim covering subsequent period of detention.

8. The applicant indicated that his handcuffing continued until January 2018, that is until he left the IK-56 of the Sverdlovsk Region. He provided three witness statements signed by his co-detainees and drawn up between 22 September 2017 and 22 April 2018.

2. Mr Kamenev (application no. 80469/17)

9. On unspecified date in 2017 Mr Kamenev complained about his unlawful handcuffing at SIZO-1 of the Zabaykalskiy Region to the Ingodinskiy District Court of Chita.

10. At the preliminary hearing held on 25 July 2017 a representative of the Penitentiary Service in the Zabaykalye Region and a representative of SIZO-1 stated that the applicant, as a person sentenced to life imprisonment, had always been escorted in handcuffs outside his cell. According to the applicant, he subsequently withdrew his claim on the ground that his leave to appear, including by way of videoconference, was rejected by the court.

3. Mr Kayukov (application no. 75764/17)

11. On unspecified date Mr Kayukov complained about his regular handcuffing at IK-18 of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office.

12. On 14 May 2018 the Federal Penitentiary Service for the Yamalo‑Nenetskiy Region informed the applicant that his handcuffing outside his cell in IK-18 was based on a decision of the prison administration.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE concerning handcuffing

13. The relevant legislation and practice on handcuffing of life prisoners are summarised in the judgment of Shlykov and Others v. Russia, nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 36-40, 19 January 2021.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

14. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. LOCUS STANDI, APPLICATION No. 41671/15

15. The Court notes that the present application was lodged by three persons, namely Mr Rudykh, Ms Rudykh, his mother, and Ms Antonova, Mr Rudykh’s alleged partner. Ms Rudykh died on 5 September 2017 and Mr Rudykh, her son, asked the Court to continue the examination of the application in her stead. The Court takes into account Mr Rudykh’s statement and the specific nature of the case related to censorship of correspondence among family members. The complaints raised by both applicants were thus identical in substance and the situations they complained about affected them in an equal measure. The Court therefore accepts that Mr Rudykh may pursue the application in so far as it was lodged by his late mother (see Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 71, 23 October 2008).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of handcuffing

16. All applicants listed in the Appendix I complained about their handcuffing in different penitentiary institutions for the periods of time ranging from several hours to several years (for further details see Appendix I). Some of them also complained about the lack of an effective remedy in this respect. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

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

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

1. Admissibility
   1. Mr Rudykh (application no. 55659/14)

17. The Government submitted that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violations since the domestic courts acknowledged them and he was no longer handcuffed afterwards (see paragraph 7 above). The Court considers that this objection is closely linked to the substance of the applicant’s complaints and must therefore be joined to the merits.

18. The Court further notes that the applicant’s complaints are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Mr Khashagulgov (application no. 59463/18)

19. The Government submitted that the applicant’s handcuffing during his transportation between 13 and 27 July 2018 from one correctional colony to another was based on the decision of 13 July 2018 taken by the committee of SIZO-1 of the Irkutsk Region to list the applicant as presenting the risks of escape and of assault of prison officers. The Government further submitted that the application of handcuffs on each occasion did not in principle exceed the required minimum of seven to ten minutes.

20. The applicant maintained his complaint.

21. The Court notes that the measure complained of was used for a transfer outside prison (see Garriguenc v. France (dec.), no. 21148/02, 15 November 2007) and was moreover directly linked to the applicant’s specific behaviour as confirmed by a reasoned decision of the prison administration and did not go beyond what could be reasonably considered necessary (compare and contrast with Shlykov and Others, cited above, §§ 79-93). Nothing in the case-file suggests that the applicant was ill or that the application of handcuffs caused any harm to his mental or physical health or that this measure was imposed on him in order to humiliate and debase him. The applicant’s handcuffing was not exposed to the general public and was based on the relevant legislation. Consequently, such treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Kleuver v. Norway (dec.), no. 45837/99, 30 April 2002, and, for a similar factual situation, Rudakov v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 70711/12, § 20, 30 March 2021).

22. It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded, and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

3. Remaining applications

23. As regards remaining complaints about handcuffing lodged by other applicants, the Court notes that they are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It furthermore notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits
   1. The parties’ submissions

24. The Government denied the application of handcuffs to the applicants within the periods of their detention complained of. In support of this position they provided certificates issued by the penitentiary administration (for more details see Appendix I).

25. The applicants questioned the reliability of these documents, some of them referring to the statements to the contrary made by the representatives of the penitentiary service in the domestic proceedings (see paragraphs 6, 10, and 12 above).

2. The Court’s assessment

26. The Court reiterates the general principles concerning the prisoners’ handcuffing summarised in the case of Shlykov and Others (cited above, §§ 69-76).

27. The Court observes at the outset that, unlike in previous cases where the systematic use of handcuffs on life convicts was not in dispute between the parties (see N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, § 53, 2 June 2020; Shlykov and Others, cited above, § 68; and Resin v. Russia [Committee], no. 9798/12, § 49, 29 June 2021), the Government in the present case submitted the certificates drawn up by the penitentiary service denying such practice in respect of the applicants and covering the entire periods complained of (see paragraph 24 above).

28. These certificates were either issued in 2020 or undated, whereas the applicants’ alleged handcuffing spanned the periods from 2009 onwards (for further details see Appendix I). In certain situations, these certificates are difficult to reconcile with the statements made by the representatives of the penitentiary service in domestic proceedings in respect of the same colonies and in respect of the same periods (see paragraphs 6, 10, and 12 above). In these circumstances, even assuming that the applicants’ handcuffing may have been discontinued in recent years, the documents prepared in 2020 that intended to cover the periods of several years prior to that date, and even all the more so the documents for which no date could be established cannot be viewed as sufficiently reliable (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 100, 22 May 2012, with further references).

29. As regards in particular the situation at IK-56 of the Sverdlovsk Region complained of by Mr Rudykh (application no. 55659/14) as well as other applicants, the Court notes that it has already found on several occasions a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the systematic use of handcuffs at that colony (see N.T. v. Russia, cited above, § 53; Shlykov and Others, cited above, § 68; Resin [Committee], cited above, § 49; and Sekretarev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 9678/09 and 8 others, 7 February 2017). The Court does not lose sight of the fact that Mr Rudykh challenged twice the routine handcuffing at this correctional colony (see §§ 6 and 7 above). Despite the successful outcome, he maintains that this practice continued until January 2018, as notably certified by his co-detainees (see § 8 above). In the absence of any document or fact submitted by the Government to the contrary, the Court is not ready to accept their assertion that such practice at that colony was discontinued after 2016, that is after the second successful round of the domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant (compare and contrast with the situation in Danilevich v. Russia, no. 31469/08, §§ 76 and 78, 19 October 2021). Consequently, the Government’s objection as regards Mr Rudykh’s loss of victim status must be rejected.

30. Having regard to the above, the Court considers the applicants’ allegations concerning their routine handcuffing to be credible and concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this account.

31. Accordingly, there is no need to examine whether the handcuffing of Mr Podyachev, Mr Rudykh, and Mr Semin at other penitentiary institutions also violated the same provision.

32. In the light of this finding the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

4. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

33. Mr Rudykh and Mr Semin (application no. 44351/18) and Mr Kyazimov (application no. 29995/18) submitted complaints regarding poor conditions of transportation which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II). 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 grounds.

34. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

35. In applications listed in the Appendices I and II, the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention.

36. The Court has examined these complaints 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.

37. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

38. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

Article 41

“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.”

39. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Shlykov and Others, cited above, § 110, and Tomov and Others, cited above, § 167), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that may have been sustained by the applicants on account of their routine handcuffing, that Mr Semin (application no. 44351/18) and Mr Kyazimov (application no. 29995/18) are to be awarded 1,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses in relation to their conditions of transport, and that Mr Rudykh is not to be made any award in non-pecuniary damage in view of the previous awards the Court has made to him in connection with his detention (see, as similar examples, Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 et al., § 12, 4 June 2020, and Resin [Committee], cited above, § 105).

40. The Court 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.

41. Concerning the remaining applicants’ claims with respect to the reimbursement of costs and expenses, the Court considers it reasonable, in view of its case-law (see, in particular, Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 106, ECHR 2009, and L.H. v. Latvia, no. 52019/07, § 68, 29 April 2014) not to award any sums to the applicants beyond those that had already been granted to them by the Court as legal aid in the course of proceedings before it.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that Mr Rudykh has standing to pursue the proceedings initiated jointly by him and his late mother, Ms Rudykh (application no. 41671/15);
3. Declares application no. 59463/18 inadmissible;
4. Decides to join to the merits the Government’s preliminary objection concerning loss of victim’s status by Mr Rudykh (application no. 55659/14) under Article 3 of the Convention and dismisses it;
5. Declares the remaining complaints concerning the applicants’ handcuffing and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the Appendices I and II, admissible and the remainder of applications marked with an asterisk in Appendix I inadmissible;
6. Holds that the complaints concerning the applicants’ handcuffing disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
7. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II);
8. Holds

(a) that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants on account of their handcuffing;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay Mr Semin (application no. 44351/18) and Mr Kyazimov (application no. 29995/18), each, within three months, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;

(c) 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;

9. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 July 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX I

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of handcuffing

APPENDIX II

Other applications lodged by the same applicants