CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s4EA85936 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sACAE8887 { width:184.76pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB62BA9AD { width:168.28pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30688/09 Vladislav Nikolayevich BELYAYEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   October 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2009, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and unlawful detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) According to the information submitted by the parties, the applicant was detained at a police station in the Samara Region for slightly over twenty hours, from 3.00 p.m. on 17 November 2008 to 11.30 a.m. on 18 November 2008. The parties have submitted contradictory information on the material conditions of detention at the police station. However, the Court can accept the Government’s argument concerning the short duration of the detention. Even if the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the police station were inadequate, the Court notes that, taking into account the short duration of the detention, they could not reach the threshold of severity required under Article   3 of the Convention (see Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia , no.   4265/06, 23   October 2012). 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. B.     Complaint under Article   5 of the Convention (unlawfulness of detention) The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention from 17 to 18 November 2008 was unlawful. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the complaint is inadmissible for the following reasons. As it follows from the parties’ submissions, the detention order of 28   October 2008, on the basis of which the applicant’s arrest on 17   November 2008 had been effected, was quashed by the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court. The matter was sent for re-examination to the appellate court. However, six days before the hearing the applicant withdrew his appeal statement and the proceedings were accordingly discontinued. The Court therefore accepts the Government’s argument that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies available to him. The applicant’s decision to waive his right to an appeal hearing about the detention matter resulted in the State having no opportunity to put matters right through its own legal system. Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. C.     Remaining complaints The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the complaints 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, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 9 November 2017. Liv Tigerstedt   Luis López Guerra Acting Deputy 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     30688/09 31/03/2009 Vladislav Nikolayevich Belyayev 27/03/1939 Belyayev Yuriy Vladislavovich Samara IVS Krasnoyarskiy District of the Samara Region   17/11/2008 to 18/11/2008     6 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light