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 } .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 } .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. 49580/17 Vitaliy Viktorovich STARIKOV 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 application lodged on 26 May 2017, Having regard to the observation submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport) The applicant firstly complained about several instances of transport in 2016 without indicating any dates. However, as follows from the information provided by the Government, the most recent occasion of his transport occurred during the proceedings in which he had taken part, in particular on 20 October 2016. That occasion of the applicant’s transport occurred more than six months before he lodged his application with the Court on 26 May 2017. Furthermore, on 18 November 2016 the applicant was transferred by train to a correctional colony to serve his sentence. The complaint about the conditions of transport by train on that date was also submitted too late, outside the six-month time-limit. Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected for the applicant’s failure to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 §§ 1 of the Convention. The applicant further complained about other instances of transport in a van in December 2016 (see the appended table for further details). As regards the applicant’s transport on those occasions, the Court finds it established that they lasted for no more than one hour each and that the applicant was not transported in an overcrowded van. Having examined the materials submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the complaint in this respect does not disclose a violation of Article 3 the Convention in the light of its established case-law (see, by contrast, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012). The Court thus considers that this part of the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application 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   Means of transport Start and end date Sq. m per inmate     49580/17 26/05/2017 Vitaliy Viktorovich Starikov 07/01/1980 van, two occasions of transport between 09/12/2016 and 16/12/2016 2 m²