FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22367/09
Andrey Pavlovich YURKEVICH
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Khanlar Hajiyev, President,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Andrey Pavlovich Yurkevich, is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Novosibirsk.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
4. In 2007, the applicant was charged with a murder and an armed robbery.
5. On 17 September 2008 the Novosibirskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Novosibirsk Regional Court.
6. On 19 November 2008 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of the District Court. It appears from the appeal judgment that the applicant’s counsel, Mr A., was absent from the appeal hearing.
2. The conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial detention
7. Between 16 May 2007 and 1 December 2008 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-54/1 of Novosibirsk. He alleged in particular, that his cell had been severely overcrowded.
8. On 1 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-54/3 of the Novosibirsk Region, where he stayed until 13 January 2009. As follows from the certificates provided by the Government, he was placed in cell 68 which measured 27.7 sq. m, was equipped with 6 beds and accommodated 5 other detainees.
3. The conditions of the applicant’s post-conviction detention
9. On 13 January 2009 the applicant was transported to correctional colony IK-18 of Novosibirsk.
10. In the colony, he was assigned to Unit 9. The dormitory of that unit measured 250 sq. m and hosted over 100 detainees. The air in the dormitory was damp and the walls and the ceiling were covered with moisture.
B. Procedure before the Court
11. On 10 March 2009 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court, complaining, in general terms, about violations of Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against him. He mentioned the dates of his arrest and of the conviction.
12. On 17 August 2009 the Court received the completed application form which was dated 22 June 2009. It contained a detailed statement of the complaints listed below.
COMPLAINTS
13. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in remand prison IZ-54/1 of Novosibirsk from 16 May 2007 to 13 January 2009.
14. He further alleged that the conditions of his detention in correctional colony IK-18 of Novosibirsk had been inhuman and degrading.
15. Under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complained about the absence of his counsel from the appeal hearing.
16. Finally, he alleged that the domestic courts had erroneously applied the law.
THE LAW
A. The complaint about the conditions of the pre-trial detention
17. The Government submitted that this complaint had been introduced out of time: it had been raised only in the application form of 22 June 2009, whereas the period of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-54/1 had ended on 1 December 2008 with his transfer to remand prison IZ-54/3.
18. The Court must therefore establish the date of introduction of the complaint, and the date on which the applicant’s stay in the impugned conditions of detention ended.
19. The Court has consistently held that a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172 and Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑I).
20. In the present case the applicant’s first letter did not contain reference to any facts, apart from the dates of his arrest and criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11 above). The facts of the complaint were described in detail only in the application form of 22 June 2009 (see paragraph 12 above).
21. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the complaint about the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-54/1 of Novosibirsk was introduced on 22 June 2009.
22. In his application form, the applicant claimed that he was held in remand prison IZ-54/1 from 16 May 2007 to 13 January 2009.
23. The Government submitted a certificate from the Novosibirsk Division of the Penitentiary Service showing that the applicant’s stay in IZ‑54/1 had ended on 1 December 2008. They also submitted a certificate from remand prison IZ-54/3 listing the dates of his stay there (see paragraph 8 above). In his observations in reply the applicant did not dispute the authenticity or accuracy of this information.
24. In the light of the above evidence, the Court concludes that the applicant’s stay in remand prison IZ-54/1 of Novosibirsk ended on 1 December 2008.
25. The Court notes that the applicant did not complain about any aspects of his stay in facility IZ-54/3. Accordingly, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 related only to his stay in prison IZ-54/1.
26. Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 21 and 24 above, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-54/1 of Novosibirsk was introduced more than six months after his transfer out of that prison. It must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 1.
B. The complaint about the conditions of post-conviction detention
27. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaints in respect of the conditions of his imprisonment in correctional colony IK-18 of Novosibirsk lack elaboration. It appears from his submissions that he was allocated around 2 sq. m of space in the sleeping area, which conforms to the domestic standard for male convicts in Russian correctional colonies, and was provided an individual bunk bed. These conditions were not, in themselves, so unsatisfactory as to find a violation of Article 3 (see Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 87, 25 June 2009 and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
28. As to the allegedly inadequate sanitary conditions in the dormitory, namely, the moisture on the walls and the ceiling (see paragraph 10 above), the Court does not consider them to be sufficient to reach the threshold of severity set by Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, 17 January 2012 and Nurmagomedov, cited above).
29. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
C. The complaint about the absence of legal representation at the appeal hearing of 19 November 2008
30. As this complaint was raised by the applicant for the first time in the application form of 22 June 2009 (see paragraphs 11 and 12 above), more than six months after the date of the final judgment in the applicant’s case, it should be rejected as belated in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
D. The complaints regarding the criminal proceedings against the applicant
31. The Court observes that the applicant’s remaining complaints essentially concern the interpretation of the domestic law by the courts and the outcome of the criminal proceedings. In this respect the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Khrabrova v. Russia, no. 18498/04, § 37, 2 October 2012 and García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). No evidence of such infringements exists in the instant case. Therefore, the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
André WampachKhanlar Hajiyev
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy