Source: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/57652-16-solovyev-i-inni-v-rosja-decyzja-europejskiego-522848498
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 19:40:51
Document Index: 187505370

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 57652', 'application no. 11069', '§ 1', '§ 4', 'application no. 57652', 'application no. 77637', 'application no. 57652', 'application no. 77637', '§ 31', '§ 10', '§ 3', '§ 121', '§ 100', '§ 156', '§ 3', '§ 52', '§ 3', 'Art. 13']

57652/16, SOLOVYEV I INNI v. ROSJA - Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
57652/16, SOLOVYEV I INNI v. ROSJA - Decyzja...
57652/16
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:1128DEC005765216
Application no. 57652/16
Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 November 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants in applications nos. 57652/16 and 77637/17,
The applicants' complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government ("the Government"). Some applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.
B. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention)
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints about the conditions of detention are inadmissible.
In particular, the Court observes that the applicant in application no. 11069/18 complained about inadequate conditions of his detention in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg. Documents submitted by the Government show that his detention in that facility ended in April 2017. The applicant did not object. The Court notes that he only lodged his application with the Court on 23 April 2018. It reiterates in this respect that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicant's detention (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). However, the period complained of had ended more than six months before the applicant lodged his complaints with the Court (for more details see the appended table). It follows that this application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
As regards applications nos. 57652/16 and 77637/17, the applicants complained about the conditions of their detention in one and the same facility during different periods separated in time or in different facilities during a period of several years (see for details the appended table below). The situation as described by the applicants does not have a "continuous nature" either because the instances of detention in the same facility were separated in time by several months to over a year of the applicant's absence from that facility (see application no. 57652/16) or because the material detention conditions in various facilities of which the applicant complained were significantly different (see application no. 77637/17). It thus follows that the complaints of the applicant in application no. 57652/16 about his detention in IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod until 8 February 2016 and the applicant's complaints in application no. 77637/17 about his detention in IZ-1 of the Buryatia Republic until 31 March 2017 were submitted belatedly as the applications were lodged with the Court on 9 September 2016 and 20 October 2017, respectively (see, for similar reasoning, Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 31, 25 July 2017). As regards the complaints about the remaining periods of the detention of these two applicants, the Court observes that the indicated periods did not exceed twenty days. Even assuming that the applicants' description of the conditions of detention was exact and taking into account the cumulative effect of those conditions, the Court does not consider that they reached the threshold of severity required within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for a similar reasoning, Karmannikov v. Russia [Committee], no. 2418/16, § 10, 8 June 2017). It follows that the complaints under Article 3 related to those periods of detention are manifestly ill–founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Finally, turning to the complaints about the detention conditions of the two remaining applicants (applications nos. 12163/17 and 7896/18), the Court reiterates that it adopts conclusions after evaluating all the evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties' submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012). In cases regarding conditions of detention the burden of proof may, under certain circumstances, be shifted to the authorities (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000- VII; see also Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX). Nevertheless, an applicant must provide an elaborate and consistent account of the conditions of his or her detention, mentioning the specific elements which would enable the Court to determine that the complaint is not manifestly ill–founded or inadmissible on any other grounds.
In the present case, the Government contended that the two applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places in their dormitories. The Court lends credence to the Government's submissions, which were corroborated by documentary evidence, whereas the applicants did not adduce any evidence capable of contradicting it.
Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants' detention, the Court does not consider that the conditions reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints raised by the two remaining applicants are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
C. Remaining complaints
Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their conditions of detention.
According to the Court's established case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
Having regard to the findings above in respect of the applicants' complaints under Article 3 about the conditions of detention, the Court concludes that they did not have an "arguable claim", and that therefore Article 13 is not applicable.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2019.
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Igor Anatolyevich Solovyev
IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
17/02/2014 to
1 month(s) and 8 day(s)
28/07/2014 to
18/01/2016 to
28/03/2016 to
overcrowding, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack or inadequate furniture, bad smell in the cell
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, bad smell in the cell, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or inadequate furniture
bad smell in the cell, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or inadequate furniture
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -
12163/17
Nail Rasul Ogly Aliyev
IZ-1 Tyumen
1 year(s) and 1 month and
77637/17
Sergey Fedorovich Shagzhiyev
Egle Denis Sergeyevich
IZ-1 Republic of Buryatia
26/09/2014 to 31/03/2017
2 years and 6 months and 5 days
IK-19 Irkutsk, IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
2.9 - 4 m²
overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet
absence of hot water in the cell
7896/18
Gennadiy Borisovich Polivanov
10/09/2016 to
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and
constant electric light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities
11069/18
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Solopakho
03/03/2016 to
1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and
poor quality of potable water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents