CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34068/19 Aleksey Gennadyevich SKIBENKO against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   August 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 application lodged on 17   June 2019, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaint about the applicant’s conditions of transport, in particular, use of handcuffs and unmuzzled dogs and attaching the applicant to a wire rope is inadmissible. The use of handcuffs could be warranted on specific occasions, such as for transfers outside prison (see Garriguenc v. France (dec.), no. 21148/02, 15   November 2007) or when used for short periods of time (see Kuzmenko v.   Russia , no. 18541/04, § 45, 21 December 2010). In the present case, the applicant was handcuffed during his transport between the prisons. The measure in question had been imposed in the context of the applicant’s lawful detention, not in order to humiliate and debase him, but on the grounds of a reasonable fear on the part of the responsible authorities that otherwise he might escape. It did not entail use of force, or public exposure, exceeding what could reasonably be considered necessary in the circumstances. Nor is the Court persuaded that the treatment in issue adversely affected the applicant’s mental state (see Raninen v. Finland , 16   December 1997, §§ 55-59, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII). The treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Kleuver v. Norway (dec.), no. 45837/99, 30   April 2002). The above conclusions are also relevant as regards attaching the applicant to a wire rope and use of a guard dog. The applicant was escorted on foot in an unguarded territory, and hence, in order to prevent the applicant from escaping or committing any offence, the escorting officers used a guard dog and a metal rope to which the prisoners were attached for a period not exceeding seven minutes. Only one hand of the applicant was attached, and he could move freely along the entire rope. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (lack of effective remedies) The applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court has declared the applicant’s complaints under Article   3 inadmissible. Accordingly, the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” of a violation of a substantive Convention provision and, therefore, Article   13 of the Convention is inapplicable to this part of the application (see Razvyazkin v. Russia , no. 13579/09, §§ 125-26, 3 July 2012). It follows that the complaint under Article 13 must also be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 September 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Means of transport Start and end date Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law 34068/19 17/06/2019 Aleksey Gennadyevich SKIBENKO 1978 train, van 19/01/2019 to 06/02/2019 Handcuffing, attaching to a wire rope, use of unmuzzled dogs   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport, in particular, in respect of handcuffing, using a dog and a rope