THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 37659/16 Sergey Sergeyevich KONSHIN against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Dmitry Dedov, Jolien Schukking, 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 in application no. 56708/17 ,

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”) . The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the poor conditions of detention.

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 application s , 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. 4897/18 complained about inadequate conditions of his detention in correctional colony no. 7 in the Kostroma Region, having indicated that he had been detained there until the end of 2017. However, the documents submitted by the Government show that his detention in that facility ended in 2014. The applicant did not object. The Court notes that he only lodged his application on 4 January 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 these complaints are 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 the complaints about the detention conditions of the two remaining applicants, 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 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

The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention.

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 28 March 2019 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Inmates per brigade

Sq. m. per inmate

Number of toilets per brigade

Specific grievances

Other complaints under well-established case-law

37659/16

26/09/2016

Sergey Sergeyevich Konshin

14/07/1987

IK-29 Kirov Region

26/11/2015 to

02/03/2018

2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 5 day(s)

190 inmate(s)

3 m²

Inadequate temperature, outside toilet, no or restricted access to shower.

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

56708/17

30/06/2017

Aleksey Stepanovich Achapkin

25/05/1976

IK-31 Krasnoyarsk

19/06/2017 to

04/08/2017

1 month(s) and 17 day(s)

Lack of fresh air, lack of toiletries, poor quality of food.

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

4897/18

04/01/2018

Aleksey Nikolayevich Yershov

13/12/1983

Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Kostroma

IK-7 Kostroma Region

28/12/2012 to

28/03/2014

1 year(s) and

3 month(s) and 1 day(s)

32 inmate(s)

2 m²

2 toilet(s)

No or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air.

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