I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in SANNIKOV v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2025-03-06
  • Communication date: 2024-07-11
  • Application number(s): 176/22
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment)
    Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture
    Degrading treatment)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.862721
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Published on 5 August 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 11 July 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The application concern complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.
5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012).
APPENDIX – Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention(inadequate conditions of detention during transport) Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Means of transport Start and end date Specific grievances Other complaints under well‐established case-law 176/22 24/12/2021 Ivan Ivanovich SANNIKOV 1988 van 27/10/2021 to 05/11/2021 no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no heating or ventilation Art.
13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport Published on 5 August 2024 (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 11 July 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER The application concern complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.
5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012).
APPENDIX – Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention(inadequate conditions of detention during transport) Application no.
Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Means of transport Start and end date Specific grievances Other complaints under well‐established case-law 176/22 24/12/2021 Ivan Ivanovich SANNIKOV 1988 van 27/10/2021 to 05/11/2021 no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no heating or ventilation Art.
13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

Judgment

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
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). 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. 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. 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,
(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)

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Means of transport
Start and end date
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
176/22
24/12/2021
Ivan Ivanovich SANNIKOV
1988

van
27/10/2021 to
05/11/2021
no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no heating or ventilation
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
1,000

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

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Means of transport
Start and end date
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
176/22
24/12/2021
Ivan Ivanovich SANNIKOV
1988

van
27/10/2021 to
05/11/2021
no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no heating or ventilation
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
1,000

Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Means of transport
Start and end date
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
176/22
24/12/2021
Ivan Ivanovich SANNIKOV
1988

van
27/10/2021 to
05/11/2021
no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no heating or ventilation
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.