THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57652/16 Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV against Russia and 4 other applications

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 November 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Gilberto Felici, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant s in applications nos. 57652/16 and 77637/17 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicant s is set out in the appended table.

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.

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2019 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention ( inadequate conditions of detention )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m. per inmate

Specific grievances

Other complaints under

well-established case-law

57652/16

09/09/2016

Igor Anatolyevich Solovyev

16/08/1971

IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

17/02/2014 to

24/03/2014

1 month(s) and 8 day(s)

IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

14/04/2014 to

12/05/2014

29 day(s)

IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

28/07/2014 to

11/08/2014

15 day(s)

IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

18/01/2016 to

08/02/2016

22 day(s)

IZ-1 Nizhniy Novgorod Region

28/03/2016 to

11/04/2016

15 day(s)

2.7 m²

2.7 m²

2.7 m²

2.4 m²

2.9 m²

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, 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, 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

01/02/2017

Nail Rasul Ogly Aliyev

12/01/1975

IZ-1 Tyumen

22/10/2015 to

12/12/2016

1 year(s) and 1 month and

21 day(s)

4 m²

insufficient natural light

77637/17

20/10/2017

Sergey Fedorovich Shagzhiyev

08/01/1966

Egle Denis Sergeyevich

Krasnoyarsk

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

01/04/2017 to

20/04/2017

19 day(s)

1 m²

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

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

7896/18

01/11/2017

Gennadiy Borisovich Polivanov

11/08/1987

IZ-47/1 St Petersburg

10/09/2016 to

08/02/2018

1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and

30 day(s)

7 m²

constant electric light, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention -

11069/18

23/04/2018

Aleksandr Sergeyevich Solopakho

05/05/1972

IZ-47/1 St Petersburg

03/03/2016 to

15/04/2017

1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and

13 day(s)

2 m²

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