CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 juin 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s80E2F039 { width:6.54pt; display:inline-block } .s49C5CA84 { width:197.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { 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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 53323/17 Yulian Yevgenyevich NEMTSEV against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21   June   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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is 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. 71910/17 the applicant also raised another complaint concerning conditions of detention during transportation under Article 3 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) 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 daily outdoor exercise and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by the penitentiary officials and excerpts from original documents showing confirming that the applicants had sufficient personal space. 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 respective detention facilities on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the facilities 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 relevant detention facilities, as well as a short duration of their stays in the conditions of which they complained (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia , nos. 43710/07 and 3 others, §§ 134-138, 17   January 2012), 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) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints In application no. 71910/17, the applicant also raised a complaint under the well-established case-law of the Court concerning inadequate condition during transport under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession showing the short duration of the trip in satisfactory conditions (see details provided in the appended table below), this complaint is also 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 12 July 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Inmates per brigade Sq. m. per inmate   Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     53323/17 03/07/2017 Yulian Yevgenyevich Nemtsev 11/12/1981 SHIZO FKU IK-1 Syktyvkar 20/01/2017 to 23/01/2017 4 days   SHIZO FKU IK-1 Syktyvkar 08/02/2017 to 8/02/2017 11 days   SHIZO FKU IK-1 Syktyvkar 22/02/2017 to 19/03/2017 26 days   PKT FKU IK-1 Syktyvkar 22/03/2017 to 27/04/2017 1 month and 6 days   SHIZO FKU IK-1 Syktyvkar 27/04/2017 to 12/05/2017 16 days 1 inmate 3 m²     1 inmate 3 m²     1 inmate 3 m²     3 inmate 3 m²     1 inmate 3 m² lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, smelly toilet, poor quality of food     lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell     lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell     inadequate temperature, cold wet floor, poor quality of food, repetitive radio programmes     lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food       56223/17 12/07/2017 Denis Vitalyevich Penzin 19/01/1981 IK-24 Sverdlovsk Region 15/09/2016 to 27/02/2017 5 months and 13 days 16 inmate   lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water       71910/17 10/09/2017 Valeriy Yuryevich Tokarev 17/04/1969 IK-5 Nizhniy Novgorod 20/03/2017 to 03/04/2017 15 days 3.4 m² lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, bad odour in the cell, mouldy or dirty cell, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, passive smoking, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of medical assistance Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, 20/03/2017, 4-hour trip with 5 other inmates in “Gazel” car