FILKOV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF FILKOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 13678/18 and 49359/18)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 January 2026

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

In the case of Filkov v. Russia,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,

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.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The relevant details related to the applicant and his two applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention. He also raised complaints stemming from the same facts under other Convention provisions.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications and the fact that they were submitted by the same applicant, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. Locus standi of ms filkova

7. The Court takes note of the applicant’s death and of the wish of his mother, Ms Galina Yeliseyevna Filkova, to pursue the proceedings he initiated.

8. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000‑IX). It further reiterates that in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of their heirs or close family members expressing their wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see Latif Fuat Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 54673/00, § 27, 2 February 2006, and Hanbayat v. Turkey, no. 18378/02, § 20, 17 July 2007). In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant’s mother has a sufficient legitimate interest in pursuing the proceedings on the applicant’s behalf.

9. The Court therefore considers that Ms G. Filkova has standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead.

4. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

10. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the inadequate conditions of his detention.

11. The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of his 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, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑65, 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, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36–40, 7 April 2005).

12. 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.

13. 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 applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.

14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

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

15. The applicant 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect).

6. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

16. The applicant raised additional complaints stemming from the same set of facts under other Convention provisions. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 13-15 above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately these remaining complaints.

7. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

167. 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, nos. 16401/12 and 9 others, 21 March 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the amount indicated in the appended table, to be paid directly to Ms G. Filkova, as the applicant’s heir.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Holds that Ms G. Filkova has standing to pursue the proceedings in the applicant’s stead;
4. Declares the complaints about poor conditions of detention and transport raised under Article 3 of the Convention (see appended table) admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court about poor conditions of transport (see the appended table);
7. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be paid directly to Ms G. Filkova, and 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)

Heir in applications nos. 13678/18 and 49359/18

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