THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SANNIKOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 176/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 March 2025

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

In the case of Sannikov v. Russia,

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

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,

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 24 December 2021.

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

THE FACTS

3.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

THE LAW

1. Jurisdiction

5.  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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during his transport. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

7.  The details of the applicant’s detention during transport are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding cramped and defective conditions during the transit of prisoners (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 124-27, 9 April 2019). It reiterates, in particular, that a strong presumption of a violation arises when detainees are transported in conveyances offering less than 0.5 square metres of space per person, regardless of whether such cramped conditions result from an excessive number of detainees being transported together or from the restrictive design of compartments (ibid., § 125). As regards longer journeys, factors such as a failure to arrange an individual sleeping place for each detainee or to secure an adequate supply of drinking water and food or access to the toilet seriously aggravate the situation of prisoners during transfers and are indicative of a violation of Article 3 (ibid., § 127).

8.  In the leading cases of Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention during his transport were inadequate.

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

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

11.  The applicant submitted a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, 16 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention during transport)

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