Communicated on 13 May 2015
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos 59443/12 and 59502/12
Sergey Aleksandrovich REZNIK against Russia
and Yuliya Vladilenovna GUZEYEVA against Russia
lodged on 4 September 2012 and 4 September 2012 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Reznik, is a Russian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
The applicant in the second case, Ms Yuliya Vladilenovna Guzeyeva, is a Russian national, who was born in 1970 and also lives in Rostov-on-Don.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 December 2006 the applicants were arrested and placed into a police ward (IVS Rostov-on-Don), where they stayed till 31 December. According to the applicants, inmates disposed of less than one square metre of personal space, there were no beds, drinking water, ventilation or possibility for outdoor exercise.
On 31 December 2006 and 1 January 2007 the applicants, Mr Reznik and Ms Guzeyeva respectively, were transferred to the remand prison IZ-61/1 where they were held till 23 March 2012. They disposed of between 0.7 and 1 square metre per inmate, fewer sleeping places than there were inmates, a low partition between the lavatory and the living area.
On 14 December 2010 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don convicted the applicants and their co-defendants of illegal banking operations and document forgery, and sentenced them to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. In addition, the court ordered the attachment of the applicants’ property, imposed during the criminal proceedings, to be lifted and the property to be confiscated as “proceeds of crime”.
On 13 March 2012 Rostov Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and reduced the applicants’ sentences. It also revoked the confiscation order on the grounds that the law, which provided for the confiscation, had been enacted after the commission of crimes.
The applicants asked the court to explain how to regain control over their property. By decisions of 4 June and 24 July 2012 the District Court and the Regional Court dismissed their request on the following grounds: the appeal judgment of 13 March 2012 had not contained explicit instructions on what was to be done with the property; its attachment had not been lifted; its ownership was not determined; the prosecutor’s office was preparing a motion for supervisory review of the case, and the appeal court had not properly calculated the date on which the law on confiscation had entered into force.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about inhuman and degrading conditions of the detention between 26 December 2006 and 23 March 2012.
The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a violation of their property rights as regards the domestic courts’ refusal to return them the previously attached property.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment as regards the conditions of their detention between 26 December 2006 and 23 March 2012, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, respected?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy