CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 August 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34381/16 Roman Viktorovich SMIRNOV against Russia lodged on 30 May 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Roman Viktorovich Smirnov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and lived in St Petersburg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In December 2011 the applicant was arrested on the charge of armed robbery. During the criminal proceedings against him, he was transferred between several remand prisons in St Petersburg: (a)     between 21 December 2011 and 25 January 2012 he was detained in IZ-47/6 in Gorelovo, the Leningrad Region; (b)     between 24 January 2012 and 6 June 2013 he was held in IZ-47/1 Kresty in St Petersburg; (c)     between 6 June 2013 and 6 June 2014 he was held in IZ-47/4 in St   Petersburg; (d)     between 6 June 2014 and 23 December 2015 he was transferred again to IZ-47/1 Kresty. In the applicant’s submission, the conditions of detention in all three remand prisons were inhuman and degrading. Detainees had at their disposal less than three square metres of floor space. Windows did not open but the applicant’s cellmates smoked inside. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in three remand prisons. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy for his grievance relating to degrading conditions of detention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Should the applicant’s detention in three remand prisons in St   Petersburg be treated as a “continuing situation” (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012)? Was it continuously effected “in substantially similar conditions”?   2.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?