CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2018

.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 } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .sF5ED19DC { width:178.27pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .sE57A0776 { height:50.2pt } .s946186CA { height:1.6pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 74204/10 Eleonora Arkadyevna BELYKH against Russia and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   January   2018 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 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”). Some applicants also raised other complaints related to the same set of events. 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 (inadequate conditions of detention) 1.     Applications nos. 43763/16, 45095/16, 4594/17 and 11565/17 As regards applications nos. 43763/16, 45095/16, 4594/17 and 11565/17, 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 cases, the Government contended that the applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places. Moreover, they had been allowed an outdoor exercise daily and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by remand prisons governors and excerpts from remand prisons’ population registers accounting for each day of the applicants’ detention. The Court is satisfied that the excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the periods under the examination and which showed the actual number of inmates present in the cells on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the remand prisons were not overcrowded. Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties in its entirety, the Court gives credence to the primary documents produced by the Government and rejects the applicants’ allegations as unsubstantiated. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants’ detention in the remand prisons, 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 the complaints about the conditions of detention as described in these applications (see appended table below) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Applications nos. 74204/10, 50939/16, 54747/16 and 61499/16 In so far as applications nos. 74204/10, 50939/16, 54747/16 and 61499/16 are concerned, the Court reiterates 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 applicants’ 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, in the present cases the periods complained of had ended more than six months before the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court (for more details see the appended table). It follows that the conditions-of-detention complaints raised by these four applicants 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. 3.     Application no. 40398/16 Finally, as regards application no. 40398/16 and the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of detention in facility IVS in the town of Kostroma, the Court notes that the Government, relying on material evidence, submitted that the applicant had not been detained in that facility during the indicated period (for details see the appended table). The applicant did not respond. In these circumstances and given the lack of any documents in support of the applicant’s allegations, the Court considers that the complaint about the conditions of detention as described by him in his application no.   40398/16 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised other complaints under Convention provisions, including under Article 13 about the lack of domestic remedies to complain about the poor conditions of detention. As concerns the Article 13 complaint, the Court reiterates that this provision only applies where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right. In view of its findings above with regard to the complaint about the conditions of detention, the Court considers that the applicants have no “arguable claim” and that the complaint under Article 13 should also be declared manifestly ill-founded and rejected under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The Court has further examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.   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 Inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate Number of toilets per brigade Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     74204/10 18/11/2010 Eleonora Arkadyevna Belykh 02/02/1961     IZ-24/1 Krasnoyarsk 07/10/2009 to 12/10/2010 1 year(s) and 6 day(s) 0.2 m² severe overcrowding, poor bedding, dim electric light, lack of natural light, no fresh air and ventilation, infestation with cockroaches and bedbugs; in transit cells there were no windows and ventilation, no toilet       40398/16 01/07/2016 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Nikolayev 25/12/1984 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IVS MoI detention facility Kostroma 18/02/2016 to 28/02/2016 11 day(s) 1.5 m²         43763/16 29/06/2016 Eduard Viktorovich Perekrestov 23/07/1968 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog IZ-61/2 Taganrog 01/02/2016 to 27/07/2016 5 month(s) and 27 day(s) 4 m²   sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     45095/16 23/07/2016 Roman Nikolayevich Makarov 11/04/1973 Reyzvig Arnold Anatolyevich Taganrog IZ-61/2 Taganrog Rostov region 20/12/2015 to 27/10/2016 10 month(s) and 8 day(s) 4 m²   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     50939/16 26/09/2016 Nikolay Vasilyevich Vasilyev 17/11/1954     IVS, Roslavl, Smolensk Region 15/05/2014 to 26/02/2016 1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 12 day(s) 3.9 m² overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, no or restricted access to running water, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, insufficient number of sleeping places       54747/16 26/11/2016 Andrey Aleksandrovich Sagandykov 14/07/1990     SIZO-1 Bryansk 10/02/2015 to 15/04/2016 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 6 day(s) 3 inmate(s) 3.6 m² lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities       61499/16 11/10/2016 Aleksey Alekseyevich Vasilyev 05/12/1983     IZ-3 Cherepovets 01/11/2015 to 09/03/2016 4 month(s) and 9 day(s)   lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of requisite medical assistance, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities       4594/17 22/12/2016 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Barinov 13/07/1980     IZ-1 Tyumen 21/07/2016 to 04/10/2016 2 month(s) and 14 day(s) 4-5 m² 1 toilet(s) lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light       11565/17 30/01/2017 Ilyas Yunesovich Gareyev 24/10/1982     IZ-1 Ulyanovsk 08/02/2016 to 08/12/2016 10 month(s) and 1 day(s) 4 m² lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, mouldy or dirty cell Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention