CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mars 2019

.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. 37659/16 Sergey Sergeyevich KONSHIN against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   March 2019 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. 56708/17, 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 applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the poor conditions of detention. 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) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the conditions of detention are inadmissible. In particular, the Court observes that the applicant in application no.   4897/18 complained about inadequate conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 7 in the Kostroma Region, having indicated that he had been detained there until the end of 2017. However, the documents submitted by the Government show that his detention in that facility ended in 2014. The applicant did not object. The Court notes that he only lodged his application on 4 January 2018. It reiterates in this respect 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). However, the period complained of had ended more than six months before the applicant lodged his complaints with the Court (for more details see the appended table). It follows that these complaints are 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 regards the complaints about the detention conditions of the two remaining applicants, 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 applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places in their dormitories. The Court lends credence to the Government’s submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicants did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it. Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants’ detention, 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 these complaints raised by the two remaining applicants are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention C.     Remaining complaints The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention. According to the Court’s established case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27   April   1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Having regard to the findings above in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 about the conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance 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 28 March 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location 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     37659/16 26/09/2016 Sergey Sergeyevich Konshin 14/07/1987     IK-29 Kirov Region 26/11/2015 to 02/03/2018 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s) 190 inmate(s) 3 m² Inadequate temperature, outside toilet, no or restricted access to shower. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.     56708/17 30/06/2017 Aleksey Stepanovich Achapkin 25/05/1976     IK-31 Krasnoyarsk 19/06/2017 to 04/08/2017 1 month(s) and 17 day(s)   Lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.     4897/18 04/01/2018 Aleksey Nikolayevich Yershov 13/12/1983 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-7 Kostroma Region 28/12/2012 to 28/03/2014 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 1 day(s) 32 inmate(s) 2 m² 2 toilet(s) No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention.