THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13065/10
Sergey Alekseyevich SAMOKHVALOV against Russia
and 4 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 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”). In application no.25104/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
In so far as application no. 25104/16 is concerned, 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 applicant’s 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). However, the period complained of had ended more than six months before the applicant lodged his complaints with the Court (for more details see appended table). It follows that these complaints are 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.
As regards the remaining applicants and their complaints, 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.
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
Representative name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well‑established case‑law
13065/10
19/01/2010
Sergey Alekseyevich Samokhvalov
24/05/1977
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
SIZO 2, SIZO 3, IK‑4, IK‑35/3 Vologda Region
02/04/2010 to
29/10/2010
6 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3,7 - 7,7 m²
49632/13
09/07/2013
Sergey Aleksandrovich Salnikov
16/10/1974
SIZO-1 Samara
28/04/2012 to
10/03/2013
10 month(s) and 11 day(s)
2.4 m²
No adequate ventilation system.
Insufficient electric and natural lighting.
No hot water.
Inadequate sanitary conditions.
Poor quality of food.
16145/16
10/03/2016
Abdulla Musayevich Abdullayev
18/07/1960
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk
01/01/2012
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 3 day(s)
250 inmate(s)
1.66 m²
5 toilet(s)
lack of fresh air, insufficient number of beds in the cell, overcrowding
24723/16
25/04/2016
Natalya Petrovna Perepelitsina
24/04/1960
Aksenov Gennadiy Vladimirovich
Pyatigorsk
IVS Pyatigorsk
07/08/2015 to
11/08/2015
5 day(s)
SIZO 26/2 Pyatigorsk
11/08/2015 to
04/12/2015
3 month(s) and 24 day(s)
SIZO 26/2 Pyatigorsk
04/12/2015 to
17/01/2016
1 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1 inmate(s)
10.5 m²
10 inmate(s)
4 m²
6 inmate(s)
7 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, no cutlery, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air
no hot water, the shop did not work
no hot water, lack of (sufficient) natural light, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
25104/16
21/04/2016
Khasan Makhmudovich Khamidov
08/08/1968
Morozova Natalya Mikhaylovna
Rodniki
SIZO-7 Moscow
06/05/2014 to
01/09/2015
1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 27 day(s)
SIZO-2 Moscow
01/09/2015 to
01/10/2015
1 month(s) and 1 day(s)
SIZO-I Ivanovo
01/10/2015 to
6/10/2015
25 day(s)
12 inmate(s)
0.8 m²
1 toilet(s)
27 inmate(s)
1.8 m²
1 toilet(s)
7 inmate(s)
2.5 m²
1 toilet(s)
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise on fresh air, no or restricted access to shower
overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise on fresh air
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy