THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65288/16
Aleksey Aleksandrovich GROSHEV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 January 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy 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 applicants 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”). The applicants also raised other complaints under Article 13 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 applicants complained about poor conditions of their detention in post-conviction facilities. 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 cases, the Government contended that the applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places. Moreover, they had been allowed an outdoor exercise daily and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by remand prisons governors and excerpts from remand prisons’ population registers accounting for each day of the applicants’ detention.
The Court is satisfied that the excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the periods under the examination and which showed the actual number of inmates present in the cells on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the remand prisons were not overcrowded.
Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties in its entirety, the Court gives credence to the primary documents produced by the Government and rejects the applicants’ allegations as unsubstantiated.
Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the remand prisons, 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 the complaints about the conditions of detention as described in these applications (see appended table below) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Remaining complaints
The applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.
The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention only applies where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. In view of its findings above with regard to the complaint about the conditions of detention, the Court considers that the applicants have no “arguable claim” and that the complaint under Article 13 should also be declared manifestly ill-founded.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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 8 February 2018.
Liv TigerstedtLuis López Guerra
Acting Deputy 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
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
65288/16
21/03/2017
Aleksey Aleksandrovich Groshev
16/04/1980
IK-29 Kirov Region
06/08/2016
pending
More than 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 4 day(s)
4 m²
poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
27059/17
14/02/2017
Valentin Viktorovich Aksenov
26/01/1968
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
12/09/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 m²
lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, lack or inadequate furniture
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
27663/17
15/02/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich Lygin
09/03/1971
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
27/02/2015
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s)
3 m²
lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
27686/17
17/02/2017
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich Kozlov
28/01/1984
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
25/05/2015
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s)
3 m²
lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy