THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 46601/16 and 46741/16 Avadallakh Albadre Suliman VAYEL against Russia and Khasim Akhmed Yelkhasan MOKHAMED against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2018 as a C ommittee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Dmitry Dedov , Jolien Schukking, judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application s lodged on 10 August 2016 and 11 August 2016 respectively ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant in the first case, Mr Avadallakh Albadre Suliman Vayel , and the applicant in the second case, Mr Khasim Akhmed Yelkhasan Mokhamed , are Sudanese nationals, who were born in 1989 and lived in Petrozavodsk. They were represented before the Court by Mr Y.A.Petrovskiy , a lawyer practising in Petozavodsk .

2 . The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3 . In the beginning of March 2016 the applicants came to Russia on student visas. However, on 24 March 2016 they quit their studies at the Povolzhskiy State University of Technology and applied for a visa to Finland.

4 . In the course of a check carried out on 31 March 2016 the administrative authorities established that the applicants misrepresented the purpose of their stay in Russia, as they were not enrolled in studies but were seeking entry to the European Union with a view to remain there.

5 . On 1 April 2016 the Kostomukshinskiy District Court of the Republic of Karelia ordered the applicant ’ s expulsion and fined each of them 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 30 euros (EUR)). They were placed in a special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting removals.

6 . The applicant ’ s appealed, but on 15 April 2016 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia upheld the decisions on the applicants ’ administrative removal.

7 . On 22 June 2016 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia dismissed the applications for supervisory review of the decisions on the applicants ’ administrative removal.

8 . On 5 and 6 October respectively the applicants were expelled to Sudan.

COMPLAINTS

9 . The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting removal. They further com plained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention that their detention pending removal was unlawful and that Russian law did not provide for a judicial review of such detention.

THE LAW

10 . In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given that they concern similar facts and raise identical legal issues under the Convention.

11 . The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the Petrozavodsk special detention facility for foreign nationals awaiting removal. The Government contested these arguments. Referring to the floor plans of the facility, the journal containing detained person ’ s records, food control records and photographs of the premises, they argued that the applicants had at their disposal at any given moment the space of at least 4 ,5 sq. m, reasonable sleeping and dining arrangements, as well as recreational facilities.

12 . Having regard to all of the available material and the parties ’ arguments the Court finds that it cannot be established that the applicants ’ detention had been affected by severe overcrowding of the kind that could entail, on its own, a violation of Article 3 (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 163-67, ECHR 2016 (extracts)). Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (see Mainov v. Russia , no. 11556/17, § 19, 15 May 2018).

13 . It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

14 . The applicants further complained under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention that their detention pending removal was unlawful and that Russian did not provide for a judicial review of such detention. The Government contested these arguments.

15 . The Court reiterates that any deprivation of liberty under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention will only be justified for as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress. If such proceedings are not carried out promptly, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see L.M. and Others v. Russia , nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, § 146, 15 October 2015). To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the grounds of detention relied on by the Government, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (ibid.).

16 . The applicants ’ complaints concern the period of six months (see paragraphs 5 and 8 above). The Court considers that there is no evidence indicating any arbitrariness in respect of the applicant ’ s detention or, more particularly, bad faith, deception or unjustified delays in respect of the authorities ’ conduct (see, conversely, Bozano v. France , 18 December 1986, § 60, Series A no. 111, and ÄŒonka v. Belgium , no. 51564/99, § 41, ECHR 2002 ‑ I).

17 . Furthermore, the applicants ’ complaints concerning the availability of judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention pending expulsion are couched in general and abstract terms. Given the expeditiousness of the national proceedings and the relatively short period of detention, the applicant ’ s individual situation was devoid of the deficiencies alleged (see similarly M.K. v. Russia , no. 35346/16, § 24, 27 February 2018).

18 . Accordingly, having regard to all the material in its possession and the conclusions above, the Court concludes that the applicants ’ complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention are 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 applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 26 July 2018 .

Fatoş Aracı Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President