THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 24334/07 and 23688/18
Igor Vladimirovich SELTSOV against Russia
and Oleg Yevgenyevich CHIZHOV against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 applicant in application no. 24334/07,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is 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”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Joinder of the applicationsHaving regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) and under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of any effective remedy)In the present applications, the applicants complained of conditions of their post-conviction detention in violation of the national requirements during periods which had already come to an end (for further details see the appended table). They also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about those conditions at the national level. Articles 3 and 13 read:
Article 3
Prohibition of torture
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
Right to an effective remedy
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Government submitted their observations, having disputed the violations alleged. On 10 January 2020 the Government submitted additional information about the new Compensation Act and asked to treat it as a new remedy in respect of conditions of detention complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.
The Court has earlier held that applicants are required to make use of the newly introduced compensatory remedy in respect of improper conditions of past correctional detention in breach of domestic standards (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17, §§ 153-57, 17 March 2020). In the present case, the applicants complained about the conditions of their post-conviction detention which were, as indicated by the applicants, below the national standard of two square metres per person. Therefore, there are no circumstances which could justify the applicants’ failure to have recourse to the new compensatory remedy.
It follows that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
In so far as the applicants refer to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to its conclusion concerning Article 3, finds that no separate issue arises under this provision. It finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Remaining complaintsMr Seltsov (application no. 24344/07) also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined those complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 7 July 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Inmates per brigade
Sq. m per inmate
Number of toilets per brigade
Specific grievances
24334/07
12/04/2007
Igor Vladimirovich SELTSOV
1968
Misakyan Mariya Gennadyevna
Moscow
IK-3, IK-6, IK-7 Vladimir Region
08/08/2002 to
11/04/2011
8 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)
115 inmate(s)
1.5 m²
6 toilet(s)
lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of requisite medical assistance
23688/18
10/05/2018
Oleg Yevgenyevich CHIZHOV
1988
IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
26/10/2015 to
07/05/2020
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)
160 inmate(s)
1.6-1.8 m²
6 toilet(s)
lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, inadequate clothing