CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mai 2022

.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 } .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 } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; 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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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. 1519/13 Sergey Igorevich KOTELNIKOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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, 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 complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. 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) In the present applications, the applicants complained of conditions of their post-conviction 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 as follows: 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 Court has recently held that applicants are required to make use of the newly introduced compensatory remedy in respect of improper conditions of past correctional detention in breach of the domestic standards (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17, §§ 153-57, 17 March 2020). In the present case, the applicants complained about the conditions of their post-conviction detention which were, as indicated by the applicants, below the national standard of two square metres per person. Therefore, there are no circumstances which could justify the applicants’ failure to have recourse to the new compensatory remedy. It follows that the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. In so far as the applicants refer to Article 13 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to its conclusion concerning Article 3, finds that no separate issue arises under this provision. It finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 9 June 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   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 Inmates per brigade Sq. m per inmate Number of toilets per brigade Specific grievances     1519/13 29/11/2012 Sergey Igorevich KOTELNIKOV 1982 Aliyev Timur Tarifovich St Petersburg IK-4 Leningrad Region 26/04/2004 to 11/12/2012 8 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 16 day(s) 137 inmate(s) 1.8 m² 8 toilet(s) overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water     56259/15 02/07/2013 Roman Vyacheslavovich BOLSHAKOV 1982 Aliyev Timur Tarifovich St Petersburg IK-4 Leningrad Region 26/03/2010 to 02/01/2013 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 7 day(s) 287 inmate(s) 1.7 m² 9 toilet(s) overcrowding, bunk beds, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food, insufficient number of sleeping places     56265/15 02/07/2013 Maksim Vasilyevich KOVALEV 1983 Aliyev Timur Tarifovich St Petersburg IK-4 Leningrad Region 04/03/2010 to 01/01/2013 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 29 day(s) 142 inmate(s) 1.7 m² 9 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, poor quality of food, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of toiletries, infestation of cell with insects/rodents     56271/15 29/11/2012 Nikita Nikolayevich SOKOLOV 1977     IK-4 Leningrad Region 26/01/2012 to 09/12/2013 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 14 day(s) 142 inmate(s) 1.3 m² 9 toilet(s) overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to running water, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, poor quality of food     56272/15 29/11/2012 Stepan Sergeyevich SHARKOV 1991     IK-4 Leningrad Region 24/06/2010 to 05/03/2013 2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 10 day(s) 142 inmate(s) 1.3 m² 9 toilet(s) overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries, mouldy or dirty cell     56273/15 29/11/2012 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV 1983 Aliyev Timur Tarifovich St Petersburg IK-4 Leningrad Region 15/12/2009 to 17/07/2015 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 3 day(s) 123 inmate(s) 1.2 m² 3 toilet(s) overcrowding, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of toiletries