CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sADC94CD6 { height:15pt } .s2B2695D6 { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } Communicated on 17 March 2020     THIRD SECTION Application no. 41743/17 Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich SHMELEV against Russia and 11 others – see appended list The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   In respect of conditions of pre-trial detention 1.     Do the applicants in applications nos.   75804/17, 77181/17 and   77265/17 have at their disposal effective domestic remedies to review their complaints concerning the conditions of their ongoing pre-trial detention, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?   In particular, can the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure (the CAP), as seen in the light of the judicial practice and clarifications issued by the Supreme Court, provide an effective preventive remedy that would satisfy the requirements as outlined in the Court’s practice (see, for example, Stella and Others v. Italy (dec.), 49169/09 et al., §§   46-55, 16   September 2014; Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos.   65540/16 and 22368/17, §§ 48-56, 27 June 2017; and Domján v.   Hungary ((dec.), no.   5433/17, §§   21-23, 14 November 2017)?   2.     In view of the indications to address the root causes of the violations of Article 3 in respect of conditions of detention in pre-trial detention centres given by the Court in the Ananyev and Others judgment (nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   184-231, 10 January 2012), subsequent changes in the domestic legislation and practice, have the measures taken by the Russian authorities improved the general situation to an extent where redress for the aggrieved individuals could be achieved through specific steps to prevent or end the breach of conditions of their pre-trial detention (see Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos.   65540/16 and 22368/17, §   56, 27 June 2017; and, a contrario , Mironovas and Others v.   Lithuania , nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 103 and 104, 8   December 2015, with further references)? In respect of conditions of correctional (post-conviction) detention 3.     Does the Compensation Act provide an adequate compensatory remedy for the applicants in applications nos.   41743/17, 60185/17 and 14988/18 in respect of their past correctional (post-conviction) detention? In particular, do these applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy to assess conditions of their past detention and to provide compensatory redress, given the minimum standard under Article 3 of the Convention (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§   136-141, 20 October 2016), and in view of the relevant provisions of Article   99 of the Code of Execution of Sentences, where those set minimal norms of floor space for the relevant categories of male detainees below three square metres per person?   4.     Do the applicants in applications nos.   74497/17, 1249/18, 9152/18, 19837/18 and 29155/18 have at their disposal effective domestic remedies to review their complaints concerning the conditions of their ongoing detention, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention?   In particular, can the provisions of the CAP, as seen in the light of the judicial practice and clarifications issued by the Supreme Court, provide an effective preventive remedy that would satisfy the requirements as outlined in the Court’s practice (see, for example, Stella and Others v.   Italy (dec.), 49169/09 et al., §§   46-55, 16 September 2014; Atanasov and Apostolov v.   Bulgaria (dec.), nos. 65540/16 and 22368/17, §§ 48-56, 27   June 2017; and Domján v.   Hungary ((dec.), no. 5433/17, §§   21-23, 14   November 2017)?   5.     In view of the indications given by the Court in the Ananyev and Others judgment (cited above), as well as its findings in Sergey Babushkin v.   Russia , no.   5993/08, §§ 52-54, 28 November 2013 (and subsequent judgments concerning poor conditions of correctional (post-conviction) detention), have the measures taken by the Russian authorities to address the root causes of the violations of Article 3 in respect of the material conditions of detention improved the general situation in correctional facilities to an extent where redress for the aggrieved individuals could be achieved through specific steps to prevent or end the breach of conditions of their detention (see Atanasov and Apostolov v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos.   65540/16 and 22368/17, §   56, 27 June 2017; and, a contrario , Mironovas and Others v.   Lithuania , nos.   40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 103 and   104, 8   December 2015)?   6.     The Government are requested to provide relevant examples of judicial practice; statistics of the use of domestic preventive remedies, separately for pre-trial and correctional (post-conviction) detention; and the results and effects of the judicial proceedings under the CAP in situations of ongoing detention; as well as to give examples of measures taken to enforce the court decisions that could allow the Court to evaluate the availability and effectiveness of preventive measures in relation to the complaints about overcrowding and poor conditions of detention in pre-trial centres and correctional (post-conviction) detention facilities where such detention is ongoing.   The Government are requested to provide any other statistical and other data relevant to the above questions; including, in particular, the occupancy rates of pre-trial detention centres and correctional (post-conviction) detention facilities, separately; and with the indication of actual floor space per detainee if possible. The Government are asked to indicate the regions and penitentiary institutions where the average occupancy rates have recently exceeded the operational capacity, or were otherwise in breach of the requirements set by the applicable domestic legislation in respect of the minimum sanitary norms of floor space per detainee, or in any other important material aspects of detention; to indicate the overall number of persons affected by such breaches, and the regions concerned; and to indicate the measures that are being taken or planned in order to address the situation. APPENDIX 1. 41743/17 Shmelev v. Russia 2. 60185/17 Gromov v. Russia 3. 74497/17 Bocharov v. Russia 4. 75804/17 Drozdov v. Russia 5. 77181/17 Ilyin v. Russia 6. 77265/17 Vasilyev v. Russia 7. 1249/18 Tyurbeyev v. Russia 8. 9152/18 Yefimenko v. Russia 9. 14988/18 Usoltsev v. Russia 10. 19837/18 Sabanov v. Russia 11. 29155/18 Izvekov v. Russia