THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23617/09
Piotr Dariush WALICHNIEWICZ against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 September 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
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. 23617/09, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Admissibility of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of detention were submitted belatedly.
1. Date of introduction
In particular, the Court accepts the Government’s arguments that two applicants (applications nos. 23617/09 and 53227/11) failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form. It therefore finds that the date of the introduction of the two applications was not the date when the applicants lodged their first letter with the Court, but rather the date when they sent the completed application form to it, which was on 12 September 2009 for application no. 23617/09 and on 23 January 2012 for application no. 53227/11.
The Court further notes that the applicant in application no. 20427/10 raised a complaint about the inadequate conditions of detention for the first time in the application form on 3 June 2010. Application no. 18238/15 was introduced on 21 March 2015.
2. Compliance with the six-month rule
The Court observes that the four applicants complained about inadequate conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities. 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). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before the applicants lodged their 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.
C. Remaining complaints
In application no. 23617/09, the applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 applications 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 6 October 2016.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy 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
23617/09
12/09/2009
Piotr Dariush WALICHNIEWICZ
31/03/1966
IZ-39/1 Kaliningrad
19/10/2006 to 14/03/2008
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 25 day(s)
IZ-39/4 Kaliningrad
15/03/2008 to 21/10/2008
7 month(s) and 7 day(s)
1.4 m²
2.1 m²
The applicant contracted scabies, vermin, dirty walls and ceiling, dim light, no privacy when using lavatory.
The applicant contracted scabies, vermin, dirty walls and ceiling, dim light, no privacy when using lavatory.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
20427/10
3/06/2010
Mikhail Alekseyevich SHEYKIN
10/06/1984
Kopylov Anton Aleksandrovich
Volgograd
IZ-34/1 Volgograd
28/02/2008 to 17/11/2009
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s)
2 m²
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, no ventilation, rodents, insects.
53227/11
23/01/2012
Aleksandr Gennadyevich PYANKOV
15/02/1979
IZ-38/2 Bratsk Irkutsk Region
07/02/2008 to 10/02/2011
3 year(s) and 4 day(s)
1 m²
Fewer sleeping places than inmates, no place to seat, no tableware, mould on the walls, poor ventilation, stench, no privacy when using lavatory, rodents, insects, dim light, shower once in 10-20 days, no outdoor exercises, poor quality of food.
18238/15
21/03/2015
Yuriy Mikhaylovich VASILYEV
10/03/1983
IZ-37/1 Ivanovo
18/06/2014 to 17/09/2014
3 month(s)
3.7 m²
Poor nutrition and an unsuitable diet, no ventilation, the applicant was the only non-smoker in the cells.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy