THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16114/11
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich GORBUNOV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 March 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicant and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 39458/11 and 41698/11 the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)
The Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded or inadmissible on any other grounds.
In the present case, the Government contended that the applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places in their cells. Moreover, they had been allowed proper access to hygienic facilities. The Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicants did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it.
Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants’ detention, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
In applications nos. 39458/11 and 41698/11 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 May 2017.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
16114/11
16/02/2011
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich GORBUNOV
15/04/1981
SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region
16/07/2010 to
19/10/2010
3 month(s) and 4 day(s)
4 inmate(s)
2 m²
lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
39458/11
07/06/2011
Dmitriy Vladislavovich GLAZYRIN
03/10/1970
IZ-16/2 Kazan
19/02/2009 to
10/03/2012
3 year(s) and 21 day(s)
9 inmate(s)
4 m²
overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen
41698/11
23/05/2011
Pavel Gennadyevich POPOV
11/12/1970
SIZO-24/1 Krasnoyarsk Region
30/01/2010 to
13/01/2011
11 month(s) and 15 day(s)
10 inmate(s)
2.8 m²
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy