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 } .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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 Applications nos. 40667/17 and 65633/17 Sergey Anatolyevich KHURTAK against Russia and Vladimir Mikhaylovich KOZYREV against Russia   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 observation in reply submitted by the applicant in application no. 65633/17, 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”). In application no. 65633/17, the applicant also complained 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) 1.     Application no. 40667/17 The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the correctional colony (see the appended table). The Government contested his arguments. Referring to the floor plans of the facility, the journal containing detained person’s records, and other authentic documentary evidence, they argued that the applicant had at his disposal at any given moment at least 3 sq. m of personal space, reasonable sleeping and dining arrangements, as well as recreational facilities. Having regard to all of the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicant suffered from severe overcrowding in detention of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20 October 2016). Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Mainov v. Russia , no. 11556/17, § 19, 15 May 2018). It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Application no. 65633/17 The Court observes that the applicant complained about the detention conditions in correctional colony no. 2 in the Kostroma Region. According to the Government, whose submissions were supported by relevant documents, the applicant’s detention in that colony was interrupted on several occasions either by his transfer to another colony or to a temporary detention facility or to quarantine facilities (most recently between 5 June and 10 July 2015). The Court notes that the applicant failed to give any description whatsoever of the conditions of those detention facilities to which he had been transferred and he did not even complain about the conditions there. It follows that the applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 2 in the period before 5 June 2015, when he was transferred to another facility, were submitted belatedly, outside the six-month time-limit (see Eskerkhanov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 31 25 July 2017, with further references). As regards the period after 10 July 2015, when the applicant was brought back to the correctional colony no. 2, 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 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 confirming that the applicant had sufficient personal space. The Court is satisfied that the excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the period under the examination and which show the actual number of inmates present in the colony. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the facility 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 in the colony during the period indicated in the appended table, 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 in correctional colony no. 2 in the period after 10   July 2015, as described by the applicant (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. 65633/17, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see 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 applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention were inadmissible, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in the case. It follows that the complaint under Article 13 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 List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   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     40667/17 02/05/2017 Sergey Anatolyevich Khurtak 12/08/1985 IK-36 Krasnoyarsk Region 02/11/2016 to 26/04/2017 5 month(s) and 25 day(s) more than 3 m² lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities, narrow corridors, morning physical exercises in the open air in winter         65633/17 25/08/2017 Vladimir Mikhaylovich Kozyrev 15/02/1996 IK-2 Kostroma Region 10/07/2015 to 09/08/2017 2 year(s) and 1 month(s)   43 inmate(s) 2.92 m² 8 toilet(s) lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -