CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .sC0E715B8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:1pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .sE2BDF40E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:left } .sC3DD1582 { width:175.28pt; 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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application nos. 67182/16 and 79180/16 Andrey Borisovich BASHLYKOV against Russia and Dmitriy Alekseyevich ANTONOV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   May   2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 67182/16, 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 applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. 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) As regards application no. 67182/16, 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. Moreover, he had spent a large part of the day outside the dormitory premises and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by the colony governor and excerpts from colony prisons’ population registers accounting for the applicant’s 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 dormitory on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the colony was 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 applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicant’s 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 the complaints about the conditions of detention as described in application no. 67182/16 (see appended table below) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As regards application no. 79180/16, the Government submitted official records and certificates showing that the applicant had never been detained in correctional colony no. 1 in Kostroma, the detention conditions of which he had complained in his application form to the Court. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s observations. In these circumstances, the Court sees no reason to doubt the Government’s submissions and finds the complaints raised in that application are manifestly ill-founded. The application must be therefore be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints The applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants’ complaints about the conditions of their detention are manifestly ill-founded, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in their cases. It follows that the complaints under Article 13 are also 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 14 June 2018. Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková 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   Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     67182/16 02/11/2016 Andrey Borisovich Bashlykov 22/02/1976     IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 01/04/2015 to 30/11/2016 1 year and 8 months 112 inmates 3.2 m²   lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, no or restricted access to shower Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     79180/16 29/11/2016 Dmitriy Alekseyevich Antonov 07/06/1977 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma 08/08/2011 to 05/08/2016 4 years and 11 months and 29 days 125 inmates 2.5 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention