CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 25640/17 Sergey Valeryevich OKISHEV against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   September 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 applicants in applications nos. 65612/17, 69179/17 and 69396/17, 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”). Some 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) 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 prison 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 the 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 applications nos.   25744/17 and 34001/17, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table). 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 were inadmissible, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in the cases. It follows that this part of the applications nos.   25744/17 and 34001/17 is 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 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     25640/17 21/03/2017 Sergey Valeryevich Okishev 16/08/1974 IZ-43/1 Kirov 31/10/2016 to 04/01/2017 2 months and 5 days 4 m²   lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature       25744/17 15/03/2017 Anton Mikhaylovich Nilogov 25/03/1980 IZ-59/1 Perm 20/09/2016 to 21/11/2016 2 months and 2 days 4 m² inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     34001/17 06/04/2017 Maksim Borisovich Filimonov 13/12/1979 SIZO-3 Novosibirsk Region 17/02/2016 to 19/11/2016 9 months and 3 days 4-5 m² bunk beds, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     65612/17 26/08/2017 Aleksandr Vitalyevich Grishin 01/11/1974 IZ-32/1 Bryansk 25/01/2017 to 07/04/2017 2 months and 14 days 4 m² lack of fresh air, broken toilet, small pleasure courtyard       69179/17 29/08/2017 Dmitriy Gennadyevich Sbitnev 23/02/1989 IZ-42/2 Kemerovo Region 18/05/2016 to 19/04/2017 11 months and 2 days 4 m²   mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light       69396/17 04/09/2017 Aleksey Valeryevich Markushin 29/03/1974 IZ-72/1 Tyumen Region 22/10/2015 to 11/07/2017 1 year and 8 months and 20 days   4 m² mouldy or dirty cell, constant electric light       73349/17 24/09/2017 Georgiy Alekseyevich Kalmykov 15/11/1988 IZ-72/1 Tyumen Region 17/09/2016 to 01/04/2017 6 months and 16 days more than 3 m² constant electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air       84133/17 30/11/2017 Dinar Elmarovich Minnullin 10/01/1987 IZ-2 Kazan 15/08/2016 to 21/10/2017 1 year and 2 months and 7 days more than 3 m² lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen