CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28032/23 Andriy Anatoliyovych MAKEYEV against Ukraine (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16   May   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   María Elósegui, judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27   June 2023, 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 and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the applicant’s complaints are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes, and it is not disputed by the parties, that on 9 February 2021 the conditions of the applicant’s detention had significantly improved. In particular, this is confirmed by the evidence submitted by the Government (colour photos of the cell) and their detailed description of the detention conditions, which the Court finds convincing. In view of the above, the Court considers that the complaint related to the applicant’s conditions of detention in the period after 9 February 2021 should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Considering the applicant’s allegations that before 9 February 2021 the conditions of his detention were extremely poor and thus significantly different from those after 9 February 2021, the Court further finds that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the period before 9   February 2021 has therefore been introduced out of time and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 77-78, 10 January 2012, and Dolgov and Silayev v. Russia [Committee], nos. 11215/10 and 55068/12, §   20-21, 4   October 2016). 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 6 June 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Carlo Ranzoni   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances 28032/23 27/06/2023 Andriy Anatoliyovych MAKEYEV 1980 Romny Detention Facility no. 56 14/04/2005 to 09/02/2021   Romny Detention Facility no. 56 09/02/2021 pending   More than 19 year(s) and 4 day(s) 3.25 m²         11 m² constant electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light.