CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 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 } .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 } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33856/17 Ilgiz Yagafarovich KHALIKOV against Russia and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   September 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , 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 after conviction were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Some of the applicant further referred to Article   13 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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and alleged lack of a domestic remedy in that regard) 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). Some of them 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 13 October 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 after conviction) 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 Other complaints     33856/17 09/08/2017 Ilgiz Yagafarovich KHALIKOV 1969     IK-1 Sverdlovsk Region 11/07/2015 - 05/07/2019 3 year(s) and 11   month(s) and 25 day(s) <2 m² overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to shower, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, disruption of sleep by facility officials, poor ecological situation of the facility       33931/17 18/04/2017 Yuriy Aleksandrovich RYBAKIN 1984     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 10/06/2016 - 17/01/2022 5 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 8 day(s) 180 inmate(s) 1.3 m² 7 toilet(s) lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to running water, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack or inadequate furniture Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     14366/18 06/03/2018 Dilovar Kamarovich GULOMOV 1985     IK-11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region 01/12/2014 - 27/08/2018 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 27 day(s) 20 inmate(s) 1.8 m² use of educational room for habitation, lack of tables, no ventilation, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, overcrowding during the walk, lack of requisite medical assistance, poor quality of food, lack or inadequate furniture, mouldy or dirty cell Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     18338/18 03/08/2017 Leonid Aleksandrovich KARMANNIKOV 1985     OIK-36 IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 26/09/2016 - 29/05/2017 8 month(s) and 4 day(s) 155 inmate(s) 1-1.2 m² 7 toilet(s) no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention     27882/18 15/05/2018 Andrey Yuryevich CHUYKOV 1979 Sergey Vasilyevich Belous Nizhekamsk IK-6 Chuvashia Republic 22/10/2000 - 20/04/2018 17 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 30 day(s) 1-1.5 m 2 overcrowding, lack of requisite medical assistance, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to running water, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of ventilation, poor quality of food, no access to sport’s facilities