CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 57652/16 Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV against Russia and 4 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   November 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Gilberto Felici, 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. 57652/16 and 77637/17, 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) 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.   11069/18 complained about inadequate conditions of his detention in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg. Documents submitted by the Government show that his detention in that facility ended in April 2017. The applicant did not object. The Court notes that he only lodged his application with the Court on 23 April 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 this application is 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 applications nos. 57652/16 and 77637/17, the applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in one and the same facility during different periods separated in time or in different facilities during a period of several years (see for details the appended table below). The situation as described by the applicants does not have a “continuous nature” either because the instances of detention in the same facility were separated in time by several months to over a year of the applicant’s absence from that facility (see application no. 57652/16) or because the material detention conditions in various facilities of which the applicant complained were significantly different (see application no. 77637/17). It thus follows that the complaints of the applicant in application no. 57652/16 about his detention in IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod until 8 February 2016 and the applicant’s complaints in application no. 77637/17 about his detention in IZ-1 of the Buryatia Republic until 31   March 2017 were submitted belatedly as the applications were lodged with the Court on 9 September 2016 and 20   October 2017, respectively (see, for similar reasoning, Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, §   31, 25 July 2017). As regards the complaints about the remaining periods of the detention of these two applicants, the Court observes that the indicated periods did not exceed twenty days. Even assuming that the applicants’ description of the conditions of detention was exact and taking into account the cumulative effect of those conditions, the Court does not consider that they reached the threshold of severity required within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for a similar reasoning, Karmannikov v. Russia [Committee], no. 2418/16, § 10, 8 June 2017). It follows that the complaints under Article 3 related to those periods of detention are manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Finally, turning to the complaints about the detention conditions of the two remaining applicants (applications nos. 12163/17 and 7896/18), 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 two 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 Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their conditions of detention. 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 19 December 2019.   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 Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     57652/16 09/09/2016 Igor Anatolyevich Solovyev 16/08/1971     IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 17/02/2014 to 24/03/2014 1 month(s) and 8 day(s)   IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 14/04/2014 to 12/05/2014 29 day(s)   IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 28/07/2014 to 11/08/2014 15 day(s)   IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/01/2016 to 08/02/2016 22 day(s)   IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 28/03/2016 to 11/04/2016 15 day(s) 2.7 m²         2.7 m²         2.7 m²         2.4 m²         2.9 m² overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, bad smell in the cell   overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, bad smell in the cell   overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, bad smell in the cell   overcrowding, lack of fresh air, bad smell in the cell, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture     bad smell in the cell, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate furniture Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     12163/17 01/02/2017 Nail Rasul Ogly Aliyev 12/01/1975     IZ-1 Tyumen 22/10/2015 to 12/12/2016 1 year(s) and 1 month and 21 day(s) 4 m² insufficient natural light       77637/17 20/10/2017 Sergey Fedorovich Shagzhiyev 08/01/1966 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk IZ-1 Republic of Buryatia 26/09/2014 to 31/03/2017 2 years and 6 months and 5 days   IK-19 Irkutsk, IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region 01/04/2017 to 20/04/2017 19 day(s) 1 m²       2.9 - 4 m²   overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet     absence of hot water in the cell Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -     7896/18 01/11/2017 Gennadiy Borisovich Polivanov 11/08/1987     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 10/09/2016 to 08/02/2018 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 30 day(s) 7 m² constant 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 -     11069/18 23/04/2018 Aleksandr Sergeyevich Solopakho 05/05/1972     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 03/03/2016 to 15/04/2017 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 m² poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents