CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 2020

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD9371F56 { margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s3C875DAE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA2548810 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s718D1C37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA3A61D5F { width:158.44pt; 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 } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 17719/17 Yevgeniy Olegovich LAZAREV against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17   December 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, 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 some of the applicants, 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 and under Article 13 of the Convention about absence of domestic remedies in Russia to complain about poor conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).   THE LAW 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. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) and under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of an effective remedy for conditions of detention) In the present applications, the applicants complained of conditions of their detention in violation of the national requirements during periods which had already come to an end (for further details see the appended table). They also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about those conditions at the national level. Articles 3 and 13 read: Article 3 Prohibition of torture “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”. Article 13 Right to an effective remedy “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.” The Government submitted their observations, having disputed the violations alleged. On 10 January 2020 the Government submitted additional information about the new Compensation Act and asked to treat it as a new remedy in respect of conditions of detention complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The applicants maintained their complaints. In its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), no.   41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020), the Court has examined similar applications lodged by Russian applicants and declared them inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In particular, the Court took into account that on 27   January 2020 the new Compensation Act entered into force in Russia. It noted that the Act provides that any detainee who alleges that his or her conditions of detention are in breach of national legislation or international agreements of the Russian Federation can apply to a court. The novelty of the Act is that the (former) detainee can claim, at the same time, a finding of a violation of inadequate detention conditions and financial compensation for such breach. In that decision, the Court further held as follows: “122.     The Court reiterates that, where the detention is over, a compensatory remedy can suffice to provide the applicants with fair redress for the alleged breach of Article   3 (see case-law cited above in paragraph 87). Accordingly, it is sufficient to examine whether the applicants concerned can be required to exhaust the compensatory remedy. 123.     As mentioned above, the Court may examine the effectiveness of a newly introduced domestic remedy even if it was not available at the time of lodging of applications, where such remedy is introduced at a later stage in response to the Court’s finding of a systemic problem (see paragraph   106 above and the case-law cited therein). 124.     The Court has concluded that the Compensation Act presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for compensatory redress in cases raising issues of improper conditions of pre-trial detention. It has found that it is directly accessible to the persons concerned, is furnished with the requisite procedural guarantees associated with judicial adversarial proceedings, that there are no reasons to expect that such claims would not be processed within a reasonable time, or that the compensation would not be paid promptly. It also concluded that the system offers reasonable prospects of success to the applicants in terms of the compensation awards. 125.     The Compensation Act is equipped with transitional provisions, so that any person whose complaint about inadequate conditions of detention was pending with this Court at the time of the Act’s entry into force can apply within 180 days after that date (see paragraph 63 above). The same would apply to those whose complaints would be declared inadmissible by this Court in view of the Act coming into force. 126.     The Court accepts that the domestic courts have not yet been able to establish any practice under the Compensation Act. However, the Court has already found that doubts about the prospects of a remedy, which appears to offer a reasonable possibility of redress, are not a sufficient reason to eschew it (see Shtolts and Others , cited above, § 111). 127.     Accordingly, even though the domestic remedy was not available to the applicants at the time when they applied to the Court, the situation justifies a departure from the general rule on exhaustion and requires the applicants in question to seek compensation under the Compensation Act. 128.     The Court accepts that the outcome of the applicants’ claims under the new provisions cannot at present be ascertained. However, as the Court has already noted on similar occasions, it would remain open for the applicants to lodge fresh complaints should their claims to the domestic courts prove unsuccessful, for one reason or another. The Court’s ultimate supervisory jurisdiction remains in respect of any complaints lodged by the applicants who, in conformity with the principle of subsidiarity, have exhausted available avenues of redress (see Domján , §   37; and Shtolts and Others , §§   112-113, both decisions cited above). The Court will remain free to assess the compliance of application of the domestic practice with the pilot judgment and the Convention standards in general, summary of the relevant case-law in paragraph 82 above). 129.     Finally, the Court does not lose sight of a number of positive developments related to the situation with pre-trial detention in Russia that will be analysed below.” Having thus considered that there exists an effective remedy in Russia for cases where applicants complain about a breach of Article 3 in respect of past pre-trial detention, and having dismissed the applications by such applicants for non-exhaustion, the Court declared that it will apply that approach to all similar applications (see Shmelev and Others , (dec.), cited above, § 130). The Court also found that applicants who complained about their detention in overcrowded conditions of post-conviction facilities in violation of the national statutory norm of two square metres per person, and where their detention in such conditions was already over, found themselves in a situation similar to that of persons whose past pre-trial detention had been in breach of the applicable national standards. The Court stressed that for them, as well as for other persons in similar situation, the new Compensatory Act presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue of obtaining compensatory redress, and offers reasonable prospects of success (see Shmelev and Others , (dec.), cited above, § 154). It thus also rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies applications where applicants complained about post-conviction detention in violation of the national statutory standard and decided that actual or potential applicants finding themselves in a similar situation – i.e. where the complaint concerns past correctional detention in conditions in breach of the applicable domestic standards – are also expected to first make use of the compensatory remedy introduced in January 2020 ( Shmelev and Others , (dec.), cited above, §§ 155-156). Turning to the circumstances of the present cases and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of these complaints. It thus considers that in so far as the applicants have lodged prima facie well-founded complaints about breach of their rights by improper conditions of their detention, as described in the appended table, the Compensation Act affords them an opportunity to obtain compensatory redress. Accordingly, the applicants should exhaust this remedy before their complaints can be examined by the Court. It follows that their complaints, as listed in the appended table, under Articles 3 and 13 should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 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 January 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Liv Tigerstedt   Darian Pavli   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 Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances     17719/17 21/02/2017 Yevgeniy Olegovich LAZAREV 1982     IZ-1, Ivanovo 22/06/2016 to 16/11/2016 4 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 m² Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food.     45190/17 02/08/2017 Aleksey Gennadyevich KUDRYAVTSEV 1961 Bykov Oleg Viktorovich St Petersburg IZ-4 St Petersburg 23/01/2017 to 10/11/2017 9 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1.8 m² Lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, constant electric light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents.     70564/17 19/09/2017 Anzhelika Aleksandrovna KRASHENININA 1966 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-3 (PFRSI) Kostroma 07/02/2017 to 11/07/2017 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 m² Lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to shower.     7880/18 10/01/2018 Nataliya Anatolyevna BERENDSEN 1960 Dobrodeyev Aleksey Vladimirovich St Petersburg IZ-47/5 St Petersburg 31/05/2016 to 11/07/2017 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) 2 m² Infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell.     12871/18 28/02/2018 Andrey Olegovich MALYUGIN 1984 Yevchenko Yekaterina Viktorovna St Petersburg IZ-47/4 St Petersburg 30/04/2017 to 25/11/2018 1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 m² Lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food.     22239/18 18/04/2018 Aleksandr Revanovich YEFAROV 1970     IZ-1 Rostov Region 13/09/2016 to 25/12/2017 1 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s) 1-2.25 m² Constant electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, poor quality of food, overcrowding.     27602/18 07/05/2018 Filipp Igorevich OBRYADIN 1997 Konakov Andrey Pavlovich St Petersburg IZ-47/1 St Petersburg 29/04/2015 to 09/11/2017 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)   Overcrowding, bunk beds, mouldy or dirty cell, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, constant electric light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of food, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.     28694/18 12/05/2018 Artem Valeryevich PONYATOVSKIY 1980     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 18/04/2015 to 06/11/2020 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s) 1.6 m² Lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, passive smoking.