THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17500/10
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich KARNAUSHKO and Others
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 December 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2010,
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 application are set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr E. Mezak, a lawyer practising in Syktyvkar.
The applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of their detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). They also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
In the present application, the applicants complained about poor conditions of their detention in the same facility in Syktyvkar on different dates between 3 November 2008 and 11 August 2009. They also argued that they did not have an effective remedy to complain about the inadequate detention conditions.
The Court reiterates in this respect that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicants’ detention (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). The most recent period of the detention complained of had ended on 11 August 2009. However, the applicants only introduced their application with the Court on 28 February 2010, that is more than six months after the end of the detention.
It follows that the application was submitted too late and that it thus is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six‑month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2017.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
17500/10
28/02/2010
(8 applicants)
Yevgeniy Anatolyevich KARNAUSHKO
26/01/1979
Andrey Aleksandrovich PAKHTUSOV
08/01/1984
Vladimir Vladimirovich BIBIKOV
06/06/1963
Valeriy Pavlovich USTINOV
09/01/1965
Taras Nikolayevich SHPORTKO
20/10/1983
Sergey Vyacheslavovich PODVOLOTSKIY
30/11/1978
Valeriy Grigoryevich PROSOLOV
24/01/1958
Sergey Nikolayevich CHUKHLOMIN
17/12/1971
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
Detention centre for administratively arrested persons Syktyvkar; different dates between
03/11/2008 to
11/08/2009
overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy