logo
This is an empty menu. Please make sure your menu has items.
Business Duty Officer

The Supreme Court calculated the compensation in 3000 rub. for three years of detention in a colony without warm underwear, insufficient

The Supreme Court calculated the compensation in 3000 rub. for three years of detention in a colony without warm underwear, insufficient

The court indicated, that violations, admitted by the penitentiary, affect the fundamental right of the convict to health and cannot be proportionately compensated by other circumstances, improving the situation of a person deprived of liberty.
According to one of the experts, the definition shows a steady trend towards strengthening judicial control over the observance by public authorities of the constitutional rights of citizens. According to another, correctional institutions should take into account, that violation of the rights of prisoners can lead to serious harm to their health, which cannot be compensated by any other easing of the regime.

В Определении № 58-КАД22-13-К9 от 27 July, the Supreme Court clarified, what courts should look for when awarding compensation for violations of conditions in penitentiaries.

Evgeny Singaevsky with 9 January 2018 y. is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the correctional colony of the Khabarovsk Territory. From the day of his arrival, he was not provided with two sets of warm underwear and insulated trousers due to the lack of clothes of his size..

Considering, that the correctional institution does not comply with the requirements of the legislation on ensuring proper conditions for the detention of convicts, Yevgeny Singayevsky appealed to the Kirovsky District Court of. Khabarovsk with an administrative claim against the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Khabarovsk Territory and the Correctional Code on the recognition of illegal actions (inactivity), expressed in the failure to provide the convict with clothing allowance, and on the award of compensation for violation of conditions of detention in the amount of 301 thousands. rub.

The court established the fact that the convict was kept in a correctional facility in conditions, not conforming to established standards (without providing warm underwear and insulated trousers). He counted, that this circumstance entails a violation of the rights of the plaintiff, guaranteed by law, and is the basis for partial satisfaction of the stated claim in the amount of 3000 rub. The appeal and cassation left the decision of the first instance in force.

Disagreeing with court decisions, Yevgeny Singaevsky filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. Having considered the complaint, The Supreme Court referred to par.. 1 p. 14 Resolutions of the Plenum of 25 December 2018 y. № 47 "About some questions, arising from the courts when considering administrative cases, related to the violation of the conditions of detention of persons, in places of detention", according to which the conditions of detention of persons deprived of their liberty must comply with the requirements, established by law, taking into account the regime of the place of detention, therefore, significant deviations from such requirements can be considered as violations of these conditions.

Sun explained, that, given the compensatory mechanism for awarding compensation for violation of containment conditions, in order to correctly resolve the issue of its size, it is necessary to take into account in aggregate the nature of the identified violations of the conditions of detention, their duration, what consequences they entailed specifically for the administrative plaintiff, taking into account his individual characteristics (age, health status), whether they were replenished in another way. At the same time, in order to avoid arbitrary overstatement or understatement by the court of the amount of compensation, the relevant motives for determining its amount must be given in the judicial act..

The definition also notes, that in the course of resolving the dispute by the courts, in violation of the requirement to take measures to comprehensively and completely establish the factual circumstances of the administrative case, it was ignored, that the complainant had to go without warm underwear for more than three years, and 6 March 2021 y. - that is, after filing an administrative claim, - he was given one set of warm underwear instead of two, and at the time of the consideration of the case in court, he was also deprived of the opportunity to change sets of warm underwear in the cold season in a timely manner in order to comply with sanitary and hygienic standards. Besides, on the day the case was heard in court, Evgeny Singaevsky was not given insulated trousers, noticed the sun.

By awarding compensation to 3000 of rubles, the courts did not take into account, that the violations are significant, affect the fundamental right of the convict to health and cannot be proportionately compensated by any other circumstances, improving the situation of a person deprived of liberty, the Supreme Court emphasized. At the same time, he added, that the lower courts did not comply with the requirements of h. 8 Art. 226 and n. 1 h. 3 Art. 227 KAS: did not oblige the administrative defendant to perform specific actions within a certain period of time, aimed at eliminating a continuing violation of the conditions of detention of an administrative plaintiff in a correctional facility. So, contrary to the requirements of Art.. 84, 176, 178 and 180 CAS courts did not give motives regarding, what specific circumstances of the case affected the amount of compensation collected in favor of the plaintiff and which of these circumstances served as the basis for a significant reduction in the amount of compensation compared to that stated in the claim. As a result, the Supreme Court canceled the judicial acts and sent the case to the first instance..

In the commentary of "AG" the head of the expert center for criminal law policy and the execution of judicial acts of the public organization "Business Russia", lawyer AP d. Moscow Ekaterina Avdeeva noted, what the Supreme Court said, one side, on the importance of identifying all the circumstances of the case and, with another, - the obligation to eliminate violations, approved by public authorities. In her opinion, the cassation ruling is an important judicial act in the general trend of courts leaving formalism and obliging them to fully motivate their decisions - in particular, regarding the calculation of compensation.

Ekaterina Avdeeva added, that the Supreme Court drew attention to the importance of protecting the inviolable rights of convicts, including health care. According to the expert, the definition shows a steady trend towards strengthening judicial control over the observance by public authorities of the constitutional rights of citizens.

“The main share of claims against the activities of the courts in the framework of administrative proceedings is based on the lack of a comprehensive consideration of the case and the unwillingness to identify all the circumstances. In view of the initial imbalance in the possibilities of proof, in order to establish a complete picture, the courts ask the administration of the penitentiary institution for information on the current state of health of the convict (paying attention to discomfort, colds, etc.)», she concluded.

Referring to practice, Criminal Defense Firm lawyer Daniil Gorkov noted, that most of the arguments of prisoners in such situations are not properly considered by the court. “There is an obvious problem of uncertainty about the reasonable amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. At the same time, the problem of keeping prisoners is also relevant., because many correctional institutions, as well as pre-trial detention centers were mainly built in the last and the century before last, when maintenance standards were far from current guarantees", he explained.

According to Daniil Gorkov, the definition of the Supreme Court establishes the right of prisoners to demand compensation for violated rights, taking into account the actual circumstances of the violations committed, their duration and consequences, regardless of the presence of guilt on the part of the enforcement authorities. The expert considers the most important, that when determining the amount of compensation, the courts must determine the seriousness and duration of the violation and reflect this in the judicial act, which was additionally emphasized by the Sun.

“Correctional institutions must take into account, that violation of the rights of prisoners can lead to serious harm to their health, and this cannot be compensated for by any other relaxation of the regime. However, one can assume, that the sun shapes the practice, on which it is necessary to specify the grounds for calculating the amount of compensation ", - noted the expert.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Other news

Share this info. Choose a social media!

pro bono consultation