THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24588/12
Anton Albertovich ZAMORKOV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 November 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 applicant 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. 24588/12 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 the applicants failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form.
In respect of applications nos. 77698/13 and 1582/14, the Court finds that the date of introduction of these cases 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, namely on 3 June 2014 for case no. 77698/13 and on 7 May 2014 for case no. 1582/14.
In so far as case no. 24588/12 is concerned, the Court notes that the applicant’s detention in remand facility IZ-35/3 ended on 28 July 2011, whilst the complaint was introduced with the Court on 8 April 2012.
2. Compliance with the six-month rule
The Court observes that the 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. 24588/12 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 8 December 2016.
Hasan BakırcıHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Sq. m. per inmate
Specific grievances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
24588/12
08/04/2012
Anton Albertovich ZAMORKOV
21/01/1989
IZ-35/3 Cherepovets Vologda Region
15/09/2010 to 28/07/2011
10 month(s) and 14 day(s)
2.5 m²
No ventilation. No privacy when using lavatory. Low partition between the lavatory and the living room, the lavatory was 1 m away from the dining table.
Poor lighting. Insects.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention - Van, rail. Vologda region 15/09/2010-21/01/2012
Overcrowding.
The applicant could not use toilet for 5 hours, hence he had to urinate in a plastic bottle while in full view of other detainees.
77698/13
03/06/2014
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich IVASHCHENKO
14/07/1983
IZ-66/1
23/04/2013 to 27/04/2013
5 day(s)
2 m²
No linen. No sanitary facilities. No shower available. No heating, broken windows.
1582/14
07/05/2014
Yevgeniy Viktorovich MELNIK
21/12/1982
IZ-63/2 Syzran
(Samara region)
10/01/2013 to
23/08/2013
7 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1,75 m²
No ventilation in the cell.
Walls covered with mould. Lack of light.
Cell full of insects, cockroaches, pill bugs. Never disinfected.
No toiletries provided.
Toilet located 1.5 meters from the table. Only to one shower per week.
Food of poor quality.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy