CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 février 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s3225EC85 { width:33.12pt; display:inline-block } .s56EAFD9F { width:153.43pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 22690/17 Aleksandr Viktorovich GRIBOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   February 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, 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, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants were detained in the “special detention centres” for administrative arrestees in Kostroma and in the Kostroma Region. The periods of their detention are specified in the appended table. THE LAW 4.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 5.     The applicants complained about the detention conditions in the “special detention centres” for administrative arrestees in Kostroma and in the Kostroma Region and about absence of a remedy against inadequate conditions of detention. Articles   3 and 13, to which they referred, read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 6.     The Government argued that the conditions of the applicants’ detention were adequate. The applicants maintained their complaints. 7.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   136-40, ECHR 2016; Ananyev and Others v.   Russia, nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012; and Butko v.   Russia, no.   32036/10, 12   November 2015). 8.     The Court notes with satisfaction that after the notification of the present cases to the Government an inspection was carried out with regard to the facilities where the applicants had been detained. Moreover, upon some of the applicants’ complaints to domestic authorities, an inspection of the detention facilities was carried out shortly after the applicants’ release. The groups of inspectors consisted of public supervisors, prosecutors and police officers. 9.     According to the information submitted to the Court as a result of the above inspections, all the applicants disposed of more than 4   sq.   m. of personal space, had individual sleeping places and bedding, sufficient light and air. This information was substantiated by the layout plans of the detention centres, extracts from the cell population registers, each applicant’s individual card indicating the cells in which they had been detained and the periods of their detention, and other documents. 10.     The information submitted by the applicants in the application forms, in particular the information on the place and periods of their detention, was imprecise. After receiving the Government’s observations the applicants failed to present any specific counterarguments and only claimed that the Government had failed to respond to each complaint raised by them. 11.     On the basis of the materials in its possession the Court concludes that the applicants disposed of more than 4   sq.   m of personal space. The Court has previously stated that in cases where a detainee disposed of more than 4   sq.   m of personal space in multi-occupancy accommodation and where therefore no issue with regard to the question of personal space arises, other aspects of physical conditions of detention remain relevant for the Court’s assessment of adequacy of an applicant’s conditions of detention under Article   3 of the Convention (see Muršić , cited above, §   140). 12.     In the present cases the Court notes that the parties have submitted little unsubstantiated information on other aspects of the physical conditions of detention, such as access to hygienic facilities, privacy when using toilet, and outdoor activities. On the basis of the information in its possession, taking into account the short periods of detention and sufficient personal space, the Court does not consider that those aspects of the physical conditions of detention were such as to amount to a form of degrading or inhuman treatment (see, for a similar reasoning, Pavlenko v.   Russia , no.   42371/02, §   81, 1   April 2010). 13.     It follows that the complaints under Article   3 are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicants did not have an “ arguable claim” of a violation of a substantive Convention provision and, therefore, Article   13 of the Convention is inapplicable to this part of the applications. It follows that the complaints under Article   13 must also be rejected pursuant to 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 21 March 2019.   Fatoş Aracı   Branko Lubarda   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   Detention facility Start and end date of detention   22690/17 06/03/2017 Aleksandr Viktorovich GRIBOV 08/07/1979 Zarubino   Special detention centre for administrative arrestees, p.   Karavayevo 17/01/2017 to 22/01/2017   22694/17 06/03/2017 Vladimir Nikolayevich SOKOLOV 11/01/1962 Kostroma   Special detention centre for administrative arrestees, Kostroma (Sverdlova   str.) 26/01/2017 to 01/02/2017   23203/17 11/03/2017 Maksim Vladimirovich GRUZDEV 20/06/1975 Kostroma   Special detention centre for administrative arrestees, p.   Karavayevo 20/01/2017 to 25/01/2017   32568/17 10/04/2017 Roman Ivanovich SIDOROV 09/08/1978 Karavayevo   Special detention centre for administrative arrestees, p.   Karavayevo 25/01/2017 to 04/02/2017   32569/17 10/04/2017 Igor Vasilyevich VLASOV 28/04/1974 Kostroma   Special detention centre for administrative arrestees Kostroma (Sverdlova   str.) 15/12/2016 to 19/12/2016