THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 25640/17 Sergey Valeryevich OKISHEV against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 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 s in applications nos. 65612/17, 69179/17 and 69396/17,

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 )

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 cases, the Government contended that the applicants had been afforded adequate personal space and had individual sleeping places. Moreover, they had been allowed daily outdoor exercise and had had proper access to hygienic facilities. The Government relied on the information provided by the remand prison governors and excerpts from the remand prisons ’ population registers accounting for each day of the applicants ’ detention.

The Court is satisfied that the excerpts are original documents which were prepared during the periods under the examination and which showed the actual number of inmates present in the cells on relevant dates. The Court also notes that the excerpts from the registers demonstrate that at the relevant time the remand prisons were not overcrowded.

Having assessed the evidence presented by the parties in its entirety, the Court gives credence to the primary documents produced by the Government and rejects the applicants ’ allegations as unsubstantiated.

Taking into account the cumulative effect of the conditions of the applicants ’ detention in the remand prisons, 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 the complaints about the conditions of detention as described in the applications (see appended table) are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Remaining complaints

In applications nos. 25744/17 and 34001/17, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table).

The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found above that the applicants ’ complaints about the conditions of their detention were inadmissible, no issue under Article 13 of the Convention arises in the cases.

It follows that this part of the applications nos. 25744/17 and 34001/17 is also manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected 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 4 October 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m. per inmate

Specific grievances

Other complaints under well-established case-law

25640/17

21/03/2017

Sergey Valeryevich Okishev

16/08/1974

IZ-43/1 Kirov

31/10/2016 to 04/01/2017

2 months and 5 days

4 m²

lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature

25744/17

15/03/2017

Anton Mikhaylovich Nilogov

25/03/1980

IZ-59/1 Perm

20/09/2016 to 21/11/2016

2 months and 2 days

4 m²

inadequate temperature, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen

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

34001/17

06/04/2017

Maksim Borisovich Filimonov

13/12/1979

SIZO-3 Novosibirsk Region

17/02/2016 to 19/11/2016

9 months and 3 days

4-5 m²

bunk beds, lack of or insufficient 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 -

65612/17

26/08/2017

Aleksandr Vitalyevich Grishin

01/11/1974

IZ-32/1 Bryansk

25/01/2017 to 07/04/2017

2 months and 14 days

4 m²

lack of fresh air, broken toilet, small pleasure courtyard

69179/17

29/08/2017

Dmitriy Gennadyevich Sbitnev

23/02/1989

IZ-42/2 Kemerovo Region

18/05/2016 to 19/04/2017

11 months and 2 days

4 m²

mouldy or dirty cell, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient electric light, constant electric light

69396/17

04/09/2017

Aleksey Valeryevich Markushin

29/03/1974

IZ-72/1 Tyumen Region

22/10/2015 to 11/07/2017

1 year and 8 months and 20 days

4 m²

mouldy or dirty cell, constant electric light

73349/17

24/09/2017

Georgiy Alekseyevich Kalmykov

15/11/1988

IZ-72/1 Tyumen Region

17/09/2016 to 01/04/2017

6 months and 16 days

more than 3 m²

constant electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air

84133/17

30/11/2017

Dinar Elmarovich Minnullin

10/01/1987

IZ-2 Kazan

15/08/2016 to 21/10/2017

1 year and 2 months and 7 days

more than 3 m²

lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen