CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 2023

.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 } .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 } .s418B82EF { width:132.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43490/20 Pavlo Stanislavovych DYAKONOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President ,   Lado Chanturia,   María Elósegui , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   September 2020, 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, Mr Pavlo Stanislavovych Dyakonov, was born in 1991. He was represented by Mr S.O. Kulbach, a lawyer practising in Limoges. The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in Poltava Detention Facility No.   23 from 27 April to 14 May 2020 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The applicant complained that the material conditions of his detention were contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that he had suffered from the lack of personal space and fresh air, inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy when using toilet, mouldy cell, poor quality of potable water, lack of bedding and bed linen. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have access to effective remedies in respect of those grievances. The Government’s observations indicated that between 27 April and 12   May 2020 the applicant had stayed in cell no. 165 in the medical unit of the detention facility. The cell measured 14.7 sq. metres and the applicant was the only inmate there. From 12   to 14 May 2020, he was in cell no. 45 of the medical unit, which measured 11.83 sq. metres and was designed for three inmates. The Government further highlighted that both cells were equipped with toilet facilities separated from the living area. However, in cell no. 165 there was no door to the lavatory area as the applicant was there alone. Additionally, the Government emphasised regular cell disinfection practices, adherence to mandated standards for potable water quality, equipment of the cells with air ventilation holes, daily ventilation of the cells during detainees’ outdoor activities, provision of bed linen and toiletries. Given the above, they concluded that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention were manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The Government supported their submissions with colour photos of both cells. The photos of cell no. 45 show a recently renovated room with three   beds, while cell no. 165 has proper material conditions and only one   bed. They are both clean, well-lit through large windows, have proper furniture and TVs. The photographic evidence also supports the Government’s descriptions of the toilet facilities. The applicant maintained his complaints mainly reiterating the allegations outlined in the initial application. Additionally, he briefly noted that cell no.   165 housed five detainees, while cell no. 45 accommodated four detainees. Assessing the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court refers to its well-established standard of proof in conditions‑of‑detention cases. In this context the Court is particularly mindful of the objective difficulties experienced by applicants in collecting evidence to substantiate their claims about conditions of their detention. Still, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide – to the greatest possible extent – some evidence in support of their complaints (see Golubenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no.   36327/06, 5 November 2013). The Court notes that in the present case the Government provided their submissions, refuting the applicant’s complaints of overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet and other aspects of conditions of his detention. Their submissions were supported by appropriate evidence. The burden of proof was thus again shifted to the applicant. He, however, failed to address the Government’s objections, merely repeating his initial complaints. Despite citing overcrowding, the applicant did not offer any clarifications or explanations, particularly concerning the accompanying photographs. Having regard to all of the available material and the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicant suffered from overcrowding that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 127 and 105, ECHR 2016), nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Bokor v. Portugal , no. 5227/18, § 34, 10 December 2020). The Court also does not lose sight of a rather short stay in allegedly poor conditions that the applicant complained about. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint has not been properly substantiated and developed by the applicant. Therefore, it should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. The Court, having found the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention inadmissible, concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, § 82, 27 May 2008). The applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention is thus likewise manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 October 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President