THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MIRZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 38339/21 and 1287/22)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 May 2025

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

In the case of Mirzayev and Others 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 24 April 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 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, in particular in view of their placement in solitary confinement.

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 ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention, and, in particular, about their solitary confinement. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.   The Court notes that the applicants were kept in solitary confinement, including in poor material 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 material conditions of detention and solitary confinement (see, for instance, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90‑94, ECHR 2000‑XI; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139‑65, 10 January 2012; and Razvyazkin v. Russia, no. 13579/09, §§ 90-112, 3 July 2012). It reiterates, in particular, that solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation is likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities, substantive reasons must be given when a protracted period of solitary confinement is extended (see Razvyazkin, cited above, §§ 101 and 104, and A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 104 and 108, 14 October 2010).

9.  In the leading cases of Ananyev and Others, and Razvyazkin, both cited above, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  In the present case, the applicants were held in uninterrupted solitary confinement for extended periods, some of them even for over two years in isolation. The Court takes note that in addition to social isolation the applicants’ placement in solitary confinement was associated with a number of further restrictions involving, in particular, limited access to outdoor exercise and limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside (see Razvyazkin, cited above, § 102), as well as was accompanied by poor material conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above). The Court also cannot overlook the fact that the applicant in application no. 38339/21 was a seriously ill person, whose medical condition has been further exacerbated by the fact of his solitary confinement. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their detention.

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

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, Ananyev and Others, and Razvyazkin, both cited above), 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention;
5. 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 15 May 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

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