CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sAB0FFF87 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s460B86C9 { width:198.42pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; 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 } .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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 13065/10 Sergey Alekseyevich SAMOKHVALOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Karen Reid, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, 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.25104/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In so far as application no. 25104/16 is concerned, 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 applicant’s 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 period complained of had ended more than six months before the applicant lodged his 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. As regards the remaining applicants and their complaints, the Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; see also Mathew v.   the   Netherlands , no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded or inadmissible on any other grounds. In the present case, the Government contended that the applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places in their cells. Moreover, they had been allowed proper access to hygienic facilities. The Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicants did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants’ detention, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 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 4 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President 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     13065/10 19/01/2010 Sergey Alekseyevich Samokhvalov 24/05/1977 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow SIZO 2, SIZO   3, IK ‑ 4, IK ‑ 35/3 Vologda Region 02/04/2010 to 29/10/2010 6 month(s) and 28 day(s)   3,7 - 7,7 m²               49632/13 09/07/2013 Sergey Aleksandrovich Salnikov 16/10/1974     SIZO-1 Samara 28/04/2012 to 10/03/2013 10 month(s) and 11 day(s)   2.4 m²     No adequate ventilation system. Insufficient electric and natural lighting. No hot water. Inadequate sanitary conditions. Poor quality of food.         16145/16 10/03/2016 Abdulla Musayevich Abdullayev 18/07/1960     IK-17 Krasnoyarsk 01/01/2012 pending More than 5   year(s) and 3   day(s)   250 inmate(s) 1.66 m² 5 toilet(s)     lack of fresh air, insufficient number of beds in the cell, overcrowding         24723/16 25/04/2016 Natalya Petrovna Perepelitsina 24/04/1960 Aksenov Gennadiy Vladimirovich Pyatigorsk IVS Pyatigorsk 07/08/2015 to 11/08/2015 5 day(s)   SIZO 26/2 Pyatigorsk 11/08/2015 to 04/12/2015 3 month(s) and 24 day(s)   SIZO 26/2 Pyatigorsk 04/12/2015 to 17/01/2016 1 month(s) and 14 day(s)     1 inmate(s) 10.5 m²       10 inmate(s) 4 m²       6 inmate(s) 7 m²     toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, no cutlery, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of fresh air     no hot water, the shop did not work     no hot water, lack of (sufficient) natural light, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell         25104/16 21/04/2016 Khasan Makhmudovich Khamidov 08/08/1968 Morozova Natalya Mikhaylovna Rodniki SIZO-7 Moscow 06/05/2014 to 01/09/2015 1 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 27 day(s)           SIZO-2 Moscow 01/09/2015 to 01/10/2015 1 month(s) and 1   day(s)               SIZO-I Ivanovo 01/10/2015 to 6/10/2015 25 day(s)   12 inmate(s) 0.8 m² 1 toilet(s)             27 inmate(s) 1.8 m² 1 toilet(s)                 7 inmate(s) 2.5 m² 1 toilet(s)     overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to shower   overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise on fresh air, no or restricted access to shower   overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient physical exercise on fresh air   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -