Постановление ЕСПЧ от 27.02.2014 «Дело «Коровины (Koroviny) против Российской Федерации» (жалоба N 31974/11) Часть 3

1   2   3

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KOROVINY v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 31974/11)
JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 27.II.2014)

———————————

<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Koroviny v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle , President,
Julia Laffranque,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik ,
Ksenija ,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and  Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 February 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (No. 31974/11) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms («the Convention») by two Russian nationals, Mr Ilya Vladimirovich Korovin («the first applicant») and his mother, Ms Tatyana Yuryevna Korovina («the second applicant»), on 29 April 2011.
  2. The applicants were represented by Mr B. Rybak, a lawyer practising in Kazan. The Russian Government («the Government») were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
  3. The applicants complained, inter alia, about conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision, attachment of the first applicant to his bed as a psychiatric measure, failure of the domestic court to address the applicants’ grievances against the hospital, and censorship of their correspondence by the hospital administration.
  4. On 7 September 2012 the above complaints were communicated to the Government.
  5. On 24 January 2013 the President granted leave to the European Disability Forum (EDF), the European Network of (ex-) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP), the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) and the International Disability Alliance (IDA) to intervene as a third party in the proceedings (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court).

 

THE FACTS

  1. The circumstances of the case
  1. The applicants were born in 1989 and 1954 respectively and live in Kazan.
  1. The first applicant’s arrest and detention

 

  1. On 9 June 2009 the first applicant was arrested in connection with a drug-related offence, and on 10 June 2009 he was detained in custody.
  2. On 29 July 2009 a forensic psychiatric examination found that the first applicant was suffering from schizophrenia requiring compulsory psychiatric treatment.
  3. On 3 August 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan («the District Court») extended the first applicant’s detention until 9 September 2009.
  4. On 28 August 2009 the District Court further extended the first applicant’s detention until 9 October 2009. On 8 September 2009 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan («the Supreme Court») upheld the above extension order on appeal.

 

  1. The first applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment in a general psychiatric hospital

 

  1. On 15 December 2009 the District Court relieved the first applicant of criminal responsibility, finding that he was mentally incapacitated. The District Court ordered the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the applicant and his admission to a general psychiatric hospital (психиатрический стационар общего типа). The District Court further decided that he should remain in custody until the entering into force of its decision and his admission to the psychiatric hospital.
  2. On 19 January 2010 the first applicant was admitted to V.M. Bekhterev Republican Clinical Psychiatric Hospital (Республиканская клиническая психиатрическая больница им. Бехтерева — hereinafter «V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital»).
  3. After attempting to escape from the hospital on 21 April 2010, he was held for a week, until 28 April 2010, in a ward measuring approximately 5 sq. m, with no windows, no ventilation, around-the-clock artificial lighting, and a bucket instead of a lavatory pan, emptied twice every twenty-four hours.

 

  1. The first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision and attachment to his bed for twenty-four hours as a psychiatric measure

 

  1. On 21 May 2010 the administration of V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital submitted a request for the first applicant to be transferred to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision (психиатрический стационар специализированного типа с интенсивным наблюдением). The request was supported by a report of the same date drawn up following an examination of the first applicant by a panel of three of the hospital’s psychiatrists. The report read as follows:

«…[The first applicant] suffers from a chronic psychiatric disorder in the form of pseudo-psychotic schizophrenia aggravated by multiple drug addiction. While under compulsory psychiatric treatment, [the latter] systematically breaches hospital rules, surrounds himself with antisocial patients, sets them against hospital personnel, disrupts the work of the department, [and] refuses treatment. [The first applicant] escaped from hospital and incites other patients to do so; [he] smuggles in prohibited items, including [those for] cutting. In view of the foregoing, the panel considers it necessary to recommend changing the form of compulsory medical treatment in respect of the [first applicant] from compulsory treatment in a general psychiatric hospital to [treatment in] a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision.»

  1. Basing its decision on the report prepared by the hospital’s psychiatrists, on 4 June 2010 the District Court granted the hospital’s request. The first applicant was not taken to the hearing. His legal guardian (the second applicant) and his lawyer were not informed of the hearing.
  2. On 16 June 2010 the first applicant was transferred to Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision (Казанская психиатрическая больница специализированного типа с интенсивным наблюдением — hereinafter «Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital»).
  3. On 29 July 2010 the first applicant had a dispute with another mental health patient of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital during which he hit that patient.
  4. On 30 July 2010 the first applicant was isolated and physical restraints were used to attach him to his bed for twenty-four hours.
  5. In the meantime, on 17 June 2010 the second applicant appealed against the decision of 4 June 2010.
  6. On 30 July 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 4 June 2010 on appeal, because the applicants had not been duly notified of the hearing. The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench. The first applicant remained in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.
  7. On 23 August 2010 the District Court again ordered the first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision. The first applicant was not allowed to attend the hearing, but the second applicant and the lawyer were present.
  8. On 5 October 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 23 August 2010 on appeal, as the hearing had taken place in the first applicant’s absence. The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench.
  9. On 25 October 2010 the District Court held an off-site court hearing at the premises of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital. The court once again ordered the first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision. Both applicants and the lawyer were present. They submitted that the first applicant’s confinement in the hospital had been unlawful in the absence of a final court decision and asked the court to order an independent forensic medical examination to determine the effect of intensive therapy on his mental condition, but to no avail. The court decided that there was consistent evidence that the first applicant’s disorder persisted and that its aggravation required treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision.
  10. In the meantime the second applicant challenged before the prosecutor’s office the lawfulness of the first applicant’s confinement in the specialist psychiatric hospital in the absence of a final court decision on the matter.
  11. On 3 November 2010 she received a reply from the Republic of Tatarstan Prosecutor’s Office (No. 12-672-10), acknowledging the unlawfulness of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital since 16 June 2010 in the absence of a final judicial decision on his transfer.
  12. On 13 December 2010 the first applicant was transferred back to V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital.
  13. On 24 December 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 25 October 2010 on appeal. The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench.
  14. On 20 January 2011 the District Court decided not to order the first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision, as there was insufficient evidence that he represented any particular threat to himself or society.
  15. On 4 March 2011, however, the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 20 January 2011 on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
  16. On 5 April 2011 the District Court again ordered the applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision. A request for the court to order independent comprehensive medical and psychiatric examinations in respect of the first applicant was dismissed.
  17. On 20 May 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 5 April 2011 on appeal.
  18. On 9 July 2011 the first applicant was transferred to Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.

 

  1. Extension of the first applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision

 

  1. On 8 June 2011 the District Court extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision. The court relied on a report of a medical examination of the first applicant, carried out on 10 November 2010 by Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.
  2. On 9 August 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the above decision on appeal, having noted that the District Court had failed to obtain the first applicant’s medical file and to address arguments by the second applicant as to the validity of the report drawn up over six months earlier.
  3. On 9 September 2011 the District Court, having complied with the instruction of the Supreme Court, extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision.
  4. On 21 October 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the above decision on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, on account of the absence of a more recent medical report in respect of the first applicant.
  5. On 22 November 2011 the District Court, having examined, inter alia, the newly prepared report of 10 November 2011, extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision. The request submitted by the second applicant for the court to order an independent forensic psychiatric examination in respect of the first applicant was dismissed.
  6. On 10 January 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.

 

  1. Civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance

 

  1. On 27 May 2011 the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against the Ministry of Finance, alleging that the proceedings concerning the first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision had been excessively lengthy, having lasted from 21 May 2010 until 20 May 2011 (see paragraphs 14 — 31 above).
  2. On 26 July 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claim as groundless.
  3. On 22 September 2011 the Appeal Section of the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.

 

  1. Civil proceedings against Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision

 

  1. On 25 October 2011 the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital for damage incurred as a result of the first applicant being unlawfully confined in the hospital between 16 June and 13 December 2010 (see paragraphs 16 — 26 above), unlawfully administered intensive therapy in the above period, and unlawfully tied to his bed from 30 July to 31 July 2010 after an incident with another patient (see paragraphs 17 — 18 above). She also alleged that her son’s correspondence had been censored, that she had been refused access to his medical file, and that the conditions of his confinement had been substandard.
  2. On 23 December 2011 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim as unsubstantiated. The court established that until October 2010 the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital had not been aware that the decision of 4 June 2010, pursuant to which the second applicant had been transferred there, had been quashed on appeal. The court held that on 25 October 2010 the first applicant had undergone a medical examination by a medical panel, who had concluded that he needed continued compulsory treatment in that hospital. It held that the first applicant’s somatic state remained satisfactory and that he received medication allowed in the Russian Federation. The court further held that psychiatric patients’ medical documents had only been accessible to hospital medical staff, hospital administration, representatives of supervising health authorities, prosecution and investigation authorities and the court. The remaining aspects of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital remained unaddressed by the court.
  3. The second applicant appealed against the above decision, noting in particular the domestic court’s failure to address her complaints regarding the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital, the incident involving him being tied to his bed, and censorship of her and her son’s correspondence by the hospital administration.
  4. On 6 February 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment on appeal, without addressing the issues which had remained unexamined by the first-instance court. The hearing was held in public, although the second applicant had not agreed to public disclosure of the first applicant’s medical diagnoses and the contents of her correspondence with him.

 

  1. The first applicant’s discharge from Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision

 

  1. On 21 November 2012 the District Court granted the application lodged by Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital and changed the form of the first applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment from confinement in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision to outpatient compulsory monitoring and psychiatrist treatment.
  2. On 3 December 2012 the first applicant was discharged from Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.

 

  1. Conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision

 

  1. As indicated above, from 16 June to 13 December 2010 and from 9 July 2011 to 3 December 2012 the first applicant was detained in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital.

 

  1. The applicants’ submissions

 

  1. The first applicant claimed to have been confined in a ward measuring 20 sq. m with between eleven to thirteen other mental health patients at one time, the majority of whom had suffered from severe psychiatric disorders accompanied with symptoms such as delirium and hallucinations. He claimed to have been confined to the ward for most of the day (except for approximately five hours when inmates were taken to eat, walk or watch TV).
  2. The first applicant alleged that there had been no lavatory or sink in the ward. He submitted, in particular, that the inmates had had to use a bucket for a toilet which had been emptied by the hospital staff twice a day and which had caused a disgusting smell in the ward.
  3. Shower use had been restricted to once a fortnight.
  4. The first applicant’s correspondence with his mother, the second applicant, had been opened and subjected to censorship by the hospital administration.

 

  1. The description provided by the Government

 

  1. Throughout his stay in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital the first applicant had been held for treatment in five different wards: ward No. 8 of department No. 1, ward Nos. 56 and 57 of department No. 6, ward No. 102 of department No. 8, and ward No. 140 of department No. 12. The dates of the first applicant’s stay in these wards, the size of the wards and the number of patients held with the first applicant are given in the table below:
Period of stay Ward No. Ward surface area (sq. m) Number of patients Surface area for each patient (sq. m)
16 — 18 June 2010 8 12.3 4 3
18 June — 13 December 2010 56 28 12 2.3
9 — 22 July 2011 8 12.3 4 3
22 July — 8 December 2011 57 28 12 2.3
8 December 2011 — 24 August 2012 140 26 10 2.6
24 August — 4 October 2012 57 28 12 2.3
4 — 19 October 2012 102 12 5 2.4
19 October — December 2012 56 28 12 2.3
  1. The Government noted with regret that the measurements of the wards where the first applicant underwent inpatient treatment indeed failed to meet the statutory standards, namely a minimum of 7 sq. m per patient in wards of a specialist psychiatric facility (see paragraph 59 below).
  2. The Government further noted that the number of beds per ward considerably exceeded the domestic requirement of no more than four per ward (see paragraph 60 below).
  3. Throughout his stay in the hospital the first applicant, like all other hospital patients, had been confined to the ward for most of the day. He had been taken out of the ward to undergo medical procedures, consult a psychologist, have a bath, help out at a concert, eat, watch TV and go for a daily walk outside (1.5 hours twice a day during summer and 1.5 hours a day during autumn and winter).
  4. All the departments where the first applicant had been confined had separate lavatories, but were not equipped with shower rooms.
  5. The Government informed the Court that, in connection with the present application, in October 2012 a committee consisting of representatives of the Republic of Tatarstan Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Federal Public Health Service and the Department of Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare had inspected Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital. Following this inspection, which confirmed the applicant’s allegations of overcrowding in the wards, the Russian Ministry of Public Health and Social Development granted 4,935,000 Russian roubles to extend building No. 3 of the hospital, so that an additional forty-four beds could be accommodated.

 

  1. Relevant domestic law

 

  1. The Health and Hygiene Rules and Standards SanPiN 2.1.3.2630-10 «Health and Hygiene Requirements for Facilities Which Carry out Medical Activities» (Санитарно-эпидемиологические правила и нормативы СанПиН 2.1.3.2630-10 «Санитарно-эпидемиологические требования к организациям, осуществляющим медицинскую деятельность») provide that each patient should be afforded no less than 6 sq. m for a bed in wards of general psychiatric hospitals and no less than 7 sq. m for a bed in wards of specialist psychiatric hospitals (clause 10.2.1, items 13 and 14 to annex 1).
  2. The number of beds per ward should not exceed four (clause 10.2.3).
  3. The Psychiatric Assistance Act of 2 July 1992 (Закон РФ от 02.07.1992 N 3185-1 «О психиатрической помощи и гарантиях прав граждан при ее оказании»), as amended, provides that measures of physical restraint and isolation can be applied, in whichever form and for such a period of time as is necessary, to a person undergoing involuntary psychiatric treatment only in such cases where, in the opinion of a psychiatrist, other methods cannot prevent that person posing an immediate risk to him/herself or others. They are carried out under the constant supervision of medical personnel (section 30 § 2).
  4. A psychiatric patient has a right to correspondence without censorship. This right, however, may be restricted in the interests of health and safety of the patient and others. The restriction is imposed by the hospital’s medical director or head of department upon recommendation by an attending psychiatrist (section 37(3) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act).

 

THE LAW

  1. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

 

  1. The second applicant complained on the first applicant’s behalf about the conditions of his confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision. She further complained about the latter’s attachment to his bed in that hospital for twenty-four hours between 30 and 31 July 2010, following an incident with another mental health patient. She 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.»

 

  1. Admissibility

 

  1. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits
  1. Submissions by the parties

 

  1. Noting with regret the deplorable conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in the wards of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital (see paragraphs 53 — 57 above), the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on this account. The Government further acknowledged that the first applicant’s attachment to his bed for twenty-four hours as a psychiatric measure had been excessive and disproportionate to his behaviour, and had amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
  2. The applicants took note of the Government’s admission.
  3. The third party (the European Disability Forum (EDF), the European Network of (ex-) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (ENUSP), the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry (WNUSP) and the International Disability Alliance (IDA)) made a number of general observations concerning the latest standards of international law as articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with regard to legal capacity, access to justice, the right of liberty and security of person, the right to be free from torture and ill-treatment and, in relation to the latter, the right to free informed consent in healthcare. They stressed, in particular, that the right to legal capacity was a basic right which needed to be guaranteed on its own and ensure the realisation of all other rights of persons with disabilities.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment

 

  1. In the circumstances of the present case the Court takes note of the admissions made by the Government and finds no reason to hold otherwise. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital and attachment to his bed in that hospital for twenty-four hours as a psychiatric measure, which amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

  1. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

 

  1. The applicants further complained that in examining their case against Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital (see paragraphs 42 — 45 above), the domestic court had failed to address their grievances regarding the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement there, the incident involving him being attached to his bed and censorship of their correspondence by the hospital administration. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

«In the determination of his civil rights and obligations…, everyone is entitled to a fair… hearing… by [a]… tribunal…»

 

  1. Admissibility

 

  1. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits
  1. Submissions by the parties

 

  1. The Government acknowledged that the domestic court’s failure to examine the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital, the first applicant’s attachment to his bed, and censorship of the applicants’ correspondence by the hospital administration had amounted to a violation of the applicants’ right to access to a court.
  2. The applicants took note of the Government’s admission.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment

 

  1. In the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to hold otherwise. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on that account.

 

III. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention

 

  1. The applicants further complained about censorship of their correspondence by the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital during the two periods the first applicant spent there. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

«1. Everyone has the right to respect for… his correspondence.

  1. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.»

 

  1. Admissibility

 

  1. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

 

  1. Merits
  1. Submissions by the parties

 

  1. The Government acknowledged that censorship of the applicants’ correspondence by the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital had amounted to a violation of the applicants’ right under Article 8 of the Convention.
  2. The applicants took note of the Government’s admission.

 

  1. The Court’s assessment

 

  1. In the circumstances of the present case the Court finds no reason to hold otherwise. It therefore concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on that account.

 

  1. Other alleged violations of the Convention

 

  1. The applicants further complained, under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 17 of the Convention, about the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital, the unlawfulness of the first applicant’s detention on remand, his confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital, the unfairness and length of the proceedings concerning the first applicant’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital, and the public nature of the hearing of their case against Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital before the Supreme Court.
  2. The Court has examined the above complaints, as submitted by the applicants. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

 

  1. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
  1. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

«If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.»

 

  1. Damage

 

  1. The first applicant claimed 7,375 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of earnings. He argued that, having regard to his previous salary, he could have been earning some EUR 250 per month had he been undergoing outpatient compulsory psychiatric treatment rather than inpatient treatment in the period between 16 June 2010 and 3 December 2012. The first applicant further claimed EUR 55,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The second applicant claimed EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
  2. The Government submitted that there was no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed by the first applicant. They further submitted that the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage were excessive.
  3. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged by the first applicant, it therefore rejects this claim. As for the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court takes into account that it has found a violation of the first applicant’s rights set out in Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and a violation of the second applicant’s rights under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the first applicant EUR 15,000 and the second applicant EUR 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts.

 

  1. Costs and expenses

 

  1. The applicants also claimed 382,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the costs related to their legal representation before the domestic courts and the Court and RUB 1105.12 for postal expenses.
  2. The Government expressed their doubts as to the reasonableness and necessity of the costs incurred by the applicants. They considered the present case to be relatively simple and involving little documentary evidence. The Government further noted that the applicants’ legal position and documentary evidence had been the same in the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court. Therefore, in their view, even though the case might have required a certain degree of research and preparation, it had not been necessary to the extent claimed by the applicants’ lawyer.
  3. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the applicants provided receipts confirming the postal expenses and the payment of legal fees to Mr B. Rybak for representing them in the domestic proceedings and before the Court. It follows from those receipts that the applicants paid RUB 100,000 for their legal representation before the Court, and the remaining sum — for their legal representation before the domestic courts. The Court notes, however, that the receipts for the applicants’ legal representation in the domestic proceedings are not sufficiently detailed to determine the exact costs incurred in connection with the complaints which were declared admissible by the Court and in which the violations of the Convention were found. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights in all communicated complaints, and therefore their lawyer was relieved of any legal research at the stage of submission of the applicants’ observations. Regard being had to the foregoing, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 5,000 covering the costs and expenses incurred by the applicants under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

 

  1. Default interest

 

  1. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

 

  1. Declares admissible

(a) the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital under Intensive Supervision;

(b) the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the first applicant’s attachment to his bed for twenty-four hours as a psychiatric measure;

(c) the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the domestic court’s failure to address the applicants’ grievances against Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital;

(d) the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning censorship of the applicants’ correspondence by the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital;

and inadmissible the remainder of the application;

  1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital;
  2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the first applicant’s attachment to his bed for twenty-four hours;
  3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic court’s failure to examine the applicants’ complaints concerning the conditions of the first applicant’s confinement in Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital, attachment to his bed and censorship of the applicants’ correspondence by the hospital administration;
  4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the censorship of the applicants’ correspondence by the administration of Kazan Specialist Psychiatric Hospital;
  5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the first applicant, and EUR 7,500 (seven thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to the second applicant, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), to the applicants jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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;

  1. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 February 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

President
Registrar

1   2   3

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.

*

code