CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s9A72FAFE { width:198.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB2941CA5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:9pt } .sB850FD44 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-before:always; font-size:9pt }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 22863/09 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich GROMOVICH against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The list of applicants, the relevant facts and the Government’s submissions are set out in the Appendix. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about degrading conditions of their detention. Some of them also raised complaints under Article   13 about the absence of an effective remedy for their grievance under Article 3. The complaints were communicated to the Government. 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.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 1.     Applications nos. 22863/09 and 16728/13 The applicants in these two cases lodged the completed and signed application forms more than six months after their detention in the facilities which they complained about had ended. It follows that this part of the applications is 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. 2.     The other applications Even though the parties in these cases disagreed on certain aspects of the conditions of the applicants’ detention, the Court, making a global assessment of the evidence that has been put before it, is unable to find that the conditions of their detention amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. C.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention The applicants in cases nos.   22863/09, 44081/09, 59867/09 and 26414/10 also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy for their complaints about the conditions of detention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under Article 13 in connection with a substantive claim which is “ arguable” (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003 ‑ VIII, with further references, and Ashworth and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39561/98, 20   January 2004). The Court has found that the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention are either belated (cases nos.   22863/09 and 16728/13) or manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible. It accordingly finds that that claim cannot be said to be “arguable” within the meaning of the Convention case-law (see Datser v. Russia (dec.), no.   43260/02, 14   May 2009, and Novikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 11303/12, 10   December 2013, §§   40-41). It follows that the corresponding complaints under Article 13 are incompatible ratione materiae and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. D.     Other alleged violations of the Convention Lastly, the applicants Mr Gromovich, Mr Bazilev, Mr Timofeyev and Mr   Yefimtsev complained of other violations 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 the above complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that these complaints are 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 join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2017.   Fatoş Aracı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   Application number Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   Facility Start and end date   The applicant’s description of the conditions of his detention The applicant’s complaints The Government’s submissions 22863/09 13/04/2009 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich GROMOVICH 21/04/1971 Lepley   Represented by Mr G. Proshkin IZ-61/1 Rostov-on-Don 18/10/2006 to 21/06/2008 1.4 sq. m per inmate Fewer sleeping places than inmates Articles 3 and 13 The applicant was detained in the remand prison from 18/10/2006 to 21/06/2008, later – in colony IK-2 in the Rostov Region (a certificate issued by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in the Rostov Region). 44081/09 22/06/2009 Yevgeniy Vladilenovich BAZILEV 23/04/1969 Samara   IZ-63/1 Samara 04/03/2009 to 02/04/2010 1.3 sq. m per inmate Fewer sleeping places than inmates Articles 3 and 13 No less than four sq. m of personal space and enjoyed one hour of outdoor exercise daily (registration logs, a plan of the prison, and a daily schedule submitted). Regular cleaning (logs); adequate inside temperature (logs); adequate sanitary conditions (a prosecutor’s report); adequate quality of running water (reports). The cells had windows and ventilation (photographs, cell plans). 59867/09 13/10/2009 Sergey Nikolayevich TIMOFEYEV 01/04/1980 Nizhnevartovsk   IZ-16/3 Bugulma, the Republic of Tatarstan 02/03/2009 to 15/07/2009 3.8 sq. m per inmate   Articles 3 and 13 4.4 to 5.7 sq. m of personal space (registration logs); weekly cleaning (logs); the cells had windows and ventilation; the applicant enjoyed outdoor exercises every day. 7072/10 29/12/2009 Denis Vladimirovich PANOV 28/02/1980 Kushmangort   IZ-56/3 Orenburg 30/04/2008 to 27/07/2009 2.6 sq. m per inmate No partition between the toilet and the rest of the cell Article 3 4.3 to 4.7   sq.   m of personal space (registration logs, prison layout); one-hour outdoor exercise daily (logs). The toilet was separated from the living area (photographs). 17549/10 02/08/2011 Ivan Ivanovich KRIVOSHCHEKOV 23/03/1972 Sol-Iletsk   IZ-56/1 Orenburg 28/10/2010 to 24/04/2011 Cell located in the basement, no outdoor exercise, no ventilation, no access to natural light Article 3 No less than four sq. m of personal space (registration logs) and one hour of outdoor exercise daily (logs). Regular cleaning (logs). The cells had windows and ventilation (photographs, cell plans). 26414/10 25/03/2010 Sergey Anatolyevich YEFIMTSEV 12/04/1976 Nalchik   Represented by Ms M. Kazantseva IZ-77/3 Moscow 22/09/2007 to 11/01/2010 2-3 sq. m per inmate Fewer sleeping places than inmates Articles 3 and 13 No less than four sq. m of personal space (registration logs), and one hour of outdoor exercise daily (daily schedule). 70555/12 16/10/2012 Aleksandr Yuryevich VASYUKOV 13/10/1983 Kaliningrad   IZ-39/1 Kaliningrad 23/08/2012 to 11/12/2012 2 sq. m per inmate Article 3 3.9 to 7.7   sq.   m of personal space (registration logs, prison layout). All other conditions were adequate (daily schedule, photographs). 16728/13 04/05/2013 Roman Sergeyevich RODIONOV 04/01/1977 St Petersburg   IZ-47/4 St   Petersburg 31/01/2012 to 07/09/2012 2.2 sq. m per inmate Fewer sleeping places than inmates Article 3 The first letter sent by fax on 26/02/2013 but not signed by the applicant. The application form submitted only on 04/05/2013.   24270/13 25/02/2013 Sergey Ivanovich LYUBIMKIN 01/04/1983 Kovylkin   IZ-73/1 Ulyanovsk 22/10/2010 to 13/09/2012 2.8 sq. m per inmate Cells infested with vermin, no drinking water or hot water, poor quality of cold running water Article 3 More than 4.5 sq. m of personal space (registration logs, a plan of the prison, cell records). The other conditions were adequate (logs, daily schedules). 30046/13 09/04/2013 Andrey Aleksandrovich IVANOV 29/11/1975 Zelenodolsk   IZ-16/1 Kazan 06/12/2006 to 28/11/2012 0.8 sq. m per inmate Fewer sleeping places than inmates Article 3 Between 06/12/2006 and 05/08/2010 there had been periods when the applicant had less than 4   sq. m of personal space. From 06/08/2010 to 28/11/2012 the applicant was detained in cell 73 which measured 20 sq. m and accommodated up to five inmates (prison layout, cell record, registration logs).