CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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. 27729/18 Eduard Aleksandrovich GUREYEV against Russia (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   October 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 application lodged on 29   May 2018, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, 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 and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The applicant complained under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention of the conditions of detention during transport from 26 to 27   November 2017 and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed for his failure to comply with the six months’ rule. They considered that the application had been introduced on 29   May 2018, which was the date of dispatch, as per the postmark on the envelope. The Court notes that, as pointed out by the Government, the envelope containing the completed application form in the present case was postmarked as 29   May 2018, while the applicant indicated “23   May 2018” as the date of introduction in the submitted application form. In this connection, the Court refers to its established practice to consider the date of the postmark as the date of introduction rather that the date featuring in the application form, if the application form was posted more than a day after the date indicated in it by the applicant (see Kemevuako v.   the   Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, §   24, 1   June 2010). Accordingly, it accepts the date of 29   May 2018 as the date of introduction of the present application. The Court also takes into account, regard being had to its well-established case-law on the issue (see, among other authorities, Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§   143-56, 9 April 2019), that the applicant had no remedy to exhaust. Accordingly, the six months in respect of his complaints started to run on the 27   November 2017 (the end-date of the period complained of), and the applicant should have introduced his complaints no later than 27   May 2018. However, he lodged them belatedly on 29   May 2017. It follows that these complaints were introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 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 Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law 27729/18 29/05/2018 Eduard Aleksandrovich GUREYEV 1978 train (Ukhta - Syktyvkar) 26/11/2017 to 27/11/2017 0.4 m² overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, inadequate temperature   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about poor conditions of transport