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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9D678D1D { margin-left:13.95pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 57362/16 Aleksandr Valeryevich IVANOV against Russia and 3 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 42354/17, 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”). 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 As regards application no. 57362/16, the Government submitted documents showing that the applicant’s detention in facility no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg had ended on 7 April 2016 while he had only complained to the Court on 3 May 2017, that is more than 6 months after the end of the detention. 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 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). In the light of the foregoing, it considers that the applicant has missed the time-limit for lodging his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and it thus holds that application no. 57362/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. Turning to applications nos. 33497/17 and 33979/17, 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 daily outdoor exercise and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by the remand prisons governors and excerpts from the 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 applications nos. 33497/17 and 33979/17 (see appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Lastly, as regards application no. 42354/17, the Court observes that the applicant’s detention should be divided into two separate periods due to a significant change in the material conditions of his detention which had occurred on 5 November 2016. The Court has examined the complaints and considers, with reference to the well-established case-law on the issue (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia , nos. 43710/07 and 3 others, § 77, 17 January 2012, and, by contrast, Guliyev v. Russia , no. 24650/02, 19 June 2008), that the entire period of the applicants’ detention did not constitute a continuous situation, in view of significantly different material detention conditions with the dividing date on 5 November 2016. The applicant brought his application to the Court on 4 June 2017. It follows that the period of his detention before 5 November 2016 had ended more than six months before he lodged his application with the Court. This part of application no. 42354/17 is thus 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. As to the period of the applicant’s detention after 5   November 2016, the Court, for the same reasons as in respect of applications nos. 33497/17 and 33979/17 above, lends credence to the Government’s submissions of adequate conditions of the applicant’s detention after that date, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicants did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it. In view of the above, the Court finds that the part of application no.   42354/17 relating to the applicant’s detention after 5 November 2016 is 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 Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances     57362/16 03/05/2017 Aleksandr Valeryevich Ivanov 08/02/1976 IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 19/07/2014 to 07/04/2016 1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 m² lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of fresh air, constant electric light, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air     33497/17 07/04/2017 Timur Shodierovich Aldergott 28/04/1988 SIZO-1 Tyumen 30/05/2016 to 20/12/2016 6 month(s) and 21 day(s) 10 inmate(s) 3-4 m² 1 toilet(s) constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture     33979/17 07/04/2017 Dmitriy Sergeyevich Popovskiy 17/08/1984 SIZO-1 Tyumen 16/03/2015 to 10/11/2016 1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 day(s) 4 m² constant electric light, lack of fresh air, lack or inadequate furniture     42354/17 04/06/2017 Aleksey Fayzullovich Yakupov 03/02/1978 SIZO-1 Primorye Region 05/11/2016 to 04/06/2017 7 month(s) No less than 3 m² inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell