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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 68455/17 Sergey Grigoryevich LITVISHCHENKO against Russia and 6 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, 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 related to the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about poor detention conditions 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 (absence of an effective domestic remedy) Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, 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. 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 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 and can claim, at the same time, a finding of a violation of inadequate detention conditions and financial compensation for such a breach. 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 would 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 (see 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 28 July 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and absence of an effective domestic remedy) 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     68455/17 26/03/2018 Sergey Grigoryevich LITVISHCHENKO 1981   IZ-47/4 St   Petersburg   26/10/2014 to 28/10/2018 4 year(s) and 3 day(s) 3 m² no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease     6171/18 18/01/2018 Eduard Albertovich KAZAKOV 1986     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region   (strict regime unit)   14/08/2016 to 12/11/2021 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 30 day(s) <2 m² overcrowding, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities     17665/18 19/12/2017 Sergey Alekseyevich ZEMLYANOV 1998     IZ-47/1 St   Petersburg 22/09/2016 to 19/12/2017   1 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 28   day(s) 1.9 m² overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell     17706/18 05/02/2018 Vasiliy Fedorovich SLIVKIN 1964     IZ-47/1 St   Petersburg   18/05/2017 to 15/12/2017 6 month(s) and 28 day(s) 2 m² poor quality of potable water, poor quality of food, overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet     17775/18 06/02/2018 Vladimir Yuryevich GAVRILEYCHENKO 1982     IZ-47/1 St   Petersburg   25/01/2017 to 28/08/2018 1 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 4 day(s) 2 m² lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient electric light     17818/18 23/03/2018 Yuriy Aleksandrovich MOSKVITIN 1963     IZ-47/1 St Petersburg   11/12/2015 to 15/12/2017 2 year(s) and 5   day(s) 2.3 m² lack of privacy for toilet, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of requisite medical assistance     21276/18 05/04/2018 Aleksandr Vasilyevich POROSHIN 1970 Pushina Diana Sergeyevna St Petersburg IZ-47/1 St   Petersburg   17/04/2015 to 23/11/2017 2 year(s) and 7   month(s) and 7   day(s) 1.7 m² lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, passive smoking, no or restricted access to warm water, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, infestation of cell with insects/rodents