THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 39093/10 and 66148/10 Mamuk Vasilyevich NEBIYERIDZE against Russia and Nikolay Anatolyevich IVASKOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 October 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Helena Jäderblom, President, Dmitry Dedov, Branko Lubarda, judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

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

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application s are 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”) . In application no. 39093/10 the applicant also raised a complaint 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. Compliance with the six-month rule for complaints about the 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 under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of detention were submitted belatedly.

In particular, the Court accepts the Government ’ s arguments that the applicants failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and to respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form. It therefore finds that the date of the introduction of the two cases was not the date when the applicants lodged their first letter with the Court, but rather the date when they sent the completed application form to it, which was on 30 December 2010 for case no. 39093/10 and on 12 January 2011 for case no. 66148/10.

The Court observes that the two applicants complained about inadequate conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities. The Court 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 applicants ’ detention (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21 056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10 December 2013). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court (for more details see appended table). It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the si x ‑ month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

C. Remaining complaints

In application no. 39093/10 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

According to the Court ’ s established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention 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 that the applicant has not complied with the six-month requirement in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention, the Court thus concludes that he did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 of the Convention is inapplicable to the case.

It follows that this complaint must be reje cted 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 3 November 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Facility

Start and end date

Duration

Sq. m. per inmate

Specific grievances

Other complaints under well-established case-law

39093/10

30/12/2010

Mamuk Vasilyevich NEBIYERIDZE

16/09/1966

IZ-74/3 Chelyabinsk

24/06/2006 to

14/09/2007

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s)

IVS Kyshtym Chelyabinsk Region

08/10/2006 to

25/09/2007

11 month(s) and 18 day(s)

IZ-74/1 Chelyabinsk

25/09/2007 to

16/09/2009

1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)

1,6 m²

Dim light, humidity, stuffiness, concrete floor, rusty iron walls, insects and rodents, stench from the wash basin.

Fewer sleeping places than inmates, no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, no bedclothes, meal was provided once a day, no outdoor exercises, insects, mice, no privacy when using lavatory that was just two meters away from the dining table.

Dim light, humidity, stuffiness, concrete floor, rusty iron walls, insects and rodents, stench from the wash basin, 40 minutes of daily outdoor exercises.

Art. 13 - lack of any eff ective remedy in domestic law

66148/10

12/01/2011

Nikolay Anatolyevich IVASKOV

23/12/1977

IVS Shilka Zabaikalskiy Region

06/02/2009 to

26/04/2010

1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)

Dim light, no daylight through metal blinders. The lavatory was not separated from living zone and was 0.3 m away from the dining table, no possibility to take shower, no outdoor exercises, one meal a day, negative temperature in cell in winter time.