CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .sF5299C86 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 1 December 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 72885/10 Aleksandr Vladimirovich KOLESIN against Russia lodged on 22   November   2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kolesin, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil. On 20 January 2009 the Verkh-Isetskiy District Court in Yekaterinburg remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of fraud. The authorised detention period was subsequently extended on several occasions. On 16 February 2010 the District Court determined that the case was not ready for trial. It directed the prosecution to remedy certain defects and extended the authorised period of the applicant’s detention under 22 April 2010. On 21 April 2010 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court heard an appeal against that detention order and decided that the applicant could be released on bail. By a supplementary decision taken on the following day in the absence of the applicant and his representatives, the Regional Court fixed the time-limit for posting bail until 11 May 2010. On 29 April 2010 that decision was sent by fax to the remand prison where the applicant was held. He was however unable to post the bail because the District Court did not have a deposit account. The applicant remained in custody. On 12 May 2010 the District Court held that the applicant must be re-detained for his failure to comply with the bail conditions. It did not set any time-limit for the application of the custodial measure. On 2 June 2010 the Regional Court quashed the detention order, finding that the District Court’s decision was not borne out by facts. It annulled the custodial measure and ordered the applicant’s release. The applicant was released on 4 June 2010. The applicant’s description of his conditions of detention in the remand prison can be summarised as follows: (a)     Cell 622, from January to June 2009, measured 30 square metres and accommodated 20 to 25 persons who took turns to sleep; windows were not glazed; the toilet was not separated; (b)     Cell 129, June and July 2009, 9 square metres and 6 inmates; (c)     Cell 407, July 2009, 12 square metres and 12 to 14 inmates; (d)     Cell 408, August 2009 to April 2010, same as above; (e)     Cell 155, April 2010, 15 square metres; (f)     Cell 134, May 2010, 14 square metres for 8 inmates. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the degrading conditions of his detention. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention from 23 April to 12 May and from 2 to 4 June 2010 did not have a lawful basis and that the decision to re-detain him on 12 May 2010 was arbitrary.       Questions to the parties   Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention compatible with the protection against inhuman and degrading treatment in Article 3 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention compatible with the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for his detention after 21 April 2010?