THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27729/18
Eduard Aleksandrovich GUREYEV
against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2018,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of the conditions of detention during transport from 26 to 27 November 2017 and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed for his failure to comply with the six months’ rule. They considered that the application had been introduced on 29 May 2018, which was the date of dispatch, as per the postmark on the envelope.
The Court notes that, as pointed out by the Government, the envelope containing the completed application form in the present case was postmarked as 29 May 2018, while the applicant indicated “23 May 2018” as the date of introduction in the submitted application form.
In this connection, the Court refers to its established practice to consider the date of the postmark as the date of introduction rather that the date featuring in the application form, if the application form was posted more than a day after the date indicated in it by the applicant (see Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 24, 1 June 2010). Accordingly, it accepts the date of 29 May 2018 as the date of introduction of the present application.
The Court also takes into account, regard being had to its well-established case-law on the issue (see, among other authorities, Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 143-56, 9 April 2019), that the applicant had no remedy to exhaust. Accordingly, the six months in respect of his complaints started to run on the 27 November 2017 (the end-date of the period complained of), and the applicant should have introduced his complaints no later than 27 May 2018. However, he lodged them belatedly on 29 May 2017.
It follows that these complaints were introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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
Sq. m per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
27729/18
29/05/2018
Eduard Aleksandrovich GUREYEV
1978
train (Ukhta - Syktyvkar)
26/11/2017 to
27/11/2017
0.4 m²
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport