MARO A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MARO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 31274/19 and 34 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

7 November 2024

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

In the case of Maro and Others v. Russia,

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

Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Diana Kovatcheva, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2024,

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 dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained that, as “outcast” inmates, they faced a risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention due to segregation, humiliating practices, and abuse in their daily lives while in detention. They highlighted the heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence due to prison hierarchy, the authorities’ failure to address that risk, and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. The applicant in application no. 12919/21 raised other complaints under the Convention provisions.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 of the Convention

7. The applicants complained of inhuman and degrading treatment in Russian penal facilities due to their inferior position within an informal prisoner hierarchy and the alleged lack of effective domestic remedies for their complaints in that regard. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

8. In the leading cases of S.P. and Others v. Russia (nos. 36463/11 and 10 others, 2 May 2023) and D v. Latvia (no. 76680/17, 11 January 2024), the Court already found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. The Court held that the physical and symbolic separation of “outcast” prisoners, coupled with restricted access to basic prison resources and denial of human contact, caused mental anxiety exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, even when they were not subjected to physical violence or threats of violence (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 96, and D v. Latvia, cited above, § 51). It also found that the domestic authorities had not taken adequate steps to protect the applicants from the treatment associated with their belonging to the stigmatised group or implemented effective mechanisms to improve their situation or address the issue comprehensively.

9. 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. It finds that the applicants belonged to the stigmatised group of prisoners and endured degrading treatment on that account. They also did not have access to an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and Article 13 of the Convention.

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

11. The applicant in application no. 12919/21 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 Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it).

5. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. Regard being had to the material in its possession and to its case‑law (see S.P. and Others, cited above, § 114), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention;
5. 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 the appended table);
6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts 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 7 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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

(inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates as a result of segregation, humiliating practices and abuse in their daily life while in detention, heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

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