This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 26 March 2020. JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 June 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2017, 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 applications were communicated to...
THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Application no. 48826/08 and 5 others - see appended list) This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 26 March 2020. JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 June 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Maznev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Luis López Guerra, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 June 2017, 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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I. 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. II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6. The Government submitted unilateral declaration in some applications which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human
2 MAZNEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI). III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 7. The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ 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, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether ...