CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 juin 2025

.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 } .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 } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37483/19 Nailya Ildusovna MAVLIKAYEVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 19 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3   July 2019, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction 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 Having examined the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning conditions of the applicant’s detention, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining this complaint for the reasons set out below. The Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. She is no longer detained in the conditions complained of. It further notes that it was open to the applicant to make resort to a new compensatory remedy, introduced by the Russian Federation on 27   January 2020, in respect of her complaints concerning the conditions of detention in breach of the national legislation (see Shmelev and Others v.   Russia , (dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020). Regard being had to its findings in Shmelev and Others (cited above) that the said remedy presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for redress and offers reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 54), and having regard to the fact that following her release the applicant did not inform the Court of her whereabouts or whether she had made recourse to the remedy in question, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. As regards the remainder of the complaints, the Court has examined the applications and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the part of the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaints about poor conditions of detention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention after conviction) 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 Specific grievances 37483/19 03/07/2019 Nailya Ildusovna MAVLIKAYEVA 1978   Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-8 and IK-3 Kostroma Region 25/10/2014 to 14/02/2021 6 year(s) and 3   month(s) and 21 day(s) 100 inmate(s) 0.6 m² overcrowding, inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower