CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s299839C6 { width:212.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 19732/07 by Sergey Vladimirovich GAK against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24   January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Gak, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Shakhty of the Rostov Region. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.B. Kuyumdzhi, a lawyer practising in Rostov-on-Don. The Russian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 22 June 2004 the applicant was charged with drug offences and was detained on remand. He was placed in remand prison IZ-61/3 of Novocherkassk, Rostov Region, but throughout his detention he was occasionally placed in another detention facility ( ИВС ) of Belaya Kalitva, Rostov Region. According to the applicant, the conditions in both detention facilities were substandard. The cells were overcrowded as the number of detainees exceeded their design capacity. The detainees had to sleep on the floor. The ventilation was not functioning, access of daylight was restricted, there had been no possibility of outdoor exercise. The sanitary conditions were poor and there was acute shortage of water supply. During the trial, for the applicant to attend the courtroom, he had to be transferred on several occasions between Novocherkassk and Belaya Kalitva, apparently by local trains and police vehicles. He alleged that the railway carriages were overcrowded, devoid of ventilation and light, the detainees were cramped together for many hours without food, water or access to toilet. On some occasions the applicant was handcuffed during the transfer. On 1 September 2006 the Belokalitvenskiy Town Court of the Rostov Region convicted the applicant of drug trafficking. On 12 December 2006 the Rostov Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. In February 2007 the applicant was transferred from remand prison IZ ‑ 61/3 to a correctional facility in Shahty, Rostov Region. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the remand prisons and the conditions of his transport from the remand prison in Novocherkassk to the courtroom in Belaya Kalitva. Referring to Article 5, he complained about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention and the lack of sufficient reasons for ordering it. Finally, he complained under Articles 6 about the unfairness of the judicial proceedings and their outcome. He also relied on Article 7, essentially restating the complaints under Article 6. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of detention and during the transfer between the detention facilities. Article 3 provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” By letter dated 13 July 2011, the applicant’s lawyer informed the Registry that the applicant was not interested in pursuing his application in the part relating to the conditions of his detention. The Government invited the Court to strike this application out of its list of cases. The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application in so far as concerns his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. In the light of this, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 §   1   (a) of the Convention 2.     The Court has considered the remaining complaints as submitted by the applicant under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of the applicant’s detention and during the transfer between the detention facilities; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Søren Nielsen   Nina Vajić   Registrar   President