CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .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 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sEE3B17D3 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 73268/10 and 30445/12 Igor Gennadyevich MIKHAYLOVSKIY against Russia and Valeriy Aleksandrovich LAZIN against Russia (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   April 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, 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, 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”). 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.     Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention 1.     Application no. 73268/10 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 applicant had been afforded adequate personal space and had an individual sleeping place in a duly equipped dormitory. Moreover, he had been allowed an outdoor exercise daily and proper access to hygienic facilities. The Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicant did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the colony, 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 this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 2.     Application no. 30445/12 In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of detention was submitted belatedly. (a)     Date of introduction In particular, the Court accepts the Government’s arguments that the applicant failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and to respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form. It therefore finds that the date of introduction of the application was not the date when the applicant lodged his first letter with the Court, but rather the date when he sent the completed application form to it, which was on 18   September 2013. (b)     Compliance with the six-month rule The Court observes that the applicant complained about inadequate conditions of his detention. 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 of which the applicant complained had ended on 11 October 2012, that is more than six months before the applicant lodged his complaint with the Court (for more details see appended table). It follows that this complaint 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 18 May 2017.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra   Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Number of inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade Specific grievances   73268/10 17/11/2010 Igor Gennadyevich MIKHAYLOVSKIY 16/05/1970 IK-51 Emva the Komi Republic 21/06/2011 to 22/04/2012 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)         poor food quality, absence of amenity premises, e.g. drying premises, exit from the IK territory forbidden.     30445/12 18/09/2013 Valeriy Aleksandrovich LAZIN 03/02/1947 IK-5 Lepley Republic of Mordovia 25/03/2003 to 11/10/2012 9 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s)   230 inmate(s) 0.9 m² 10 toilet(s)     weekly shower - 10 shower heads for 40   inmates, small and dirty walking yard, daily walk for two hours, squat toilet in the outhouse with 10 holes without flushing system or ventilation, toilet holes not separated from each other, damp and cold sleeping premises without ventilation, no hot water, four sinks, dinner table in the washroom, infestation with mosquitos, flies and cockroaches, inmates infected with hepatitis, HIV, tuberculosis, dirty and old bed linen, poor food quality