FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 24883/13 Aleksandr Yuryevich YEFIMENKO against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 9 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Khanlar Hajiyev , President, Erik Møse , Dmitry Dedov , judges, André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows :

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Yuryevich Yefimenko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and live d in Medvedovskaya of the Krasnodar Region prior to his conviction .

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin , the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights .

3. Between 8 October 2011 and 27 September 2012 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-23/1 in Krasnodar. The prison was allegedly overcrowded.

4 . On 24 March 2013 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court, which read as follows:

“Preliminary complaint.

I, Yefimenko Aleksandr Yuryevich, was convicted ... to a prison term of nine years.

I consider that [my rights under] Article 3... of the European Convention were infringed.

I request you to register my preliminary complaint and to send me an application form.”

5 . On 26 June 2013 the Court received the completed application form which was dated 3 June 2013. It contained, among other things, a detailed description of the applicant ’ s conditions of detention in remand prison IZ ‑ 23/1 of Krasnodar.

COMPLAIN T

6. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar between 8 October 2011 and 27 September 2012 .

THE LAW

7. The Government submitted that the complaint had been introduced out of time: it had been raised only in the application form of 3 June 2013, whereas the period of the applicant ’ s detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 had ended on 27 September 2012 .

8. The Court must therefore establish the date of introduction of the complaint.

9. The Court has consistently held that a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009 ; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1990, § 29 , Series A no. 172 , and Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 44 , Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I ).

10 . In the present case the applicant ’ s first letter did not contain any description of the impugned facts, beyond a mention that he had been sentenced to a prison term of nine years (see paragraph 4 above) . The facts of the complaint pertaining to the conditions of his detention were stated for the first time in the application form of 3 June 2013.

11 . In these circumstances, the Court finds that the complaint about the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar was introduced on 3 June 2013, eight months and six days after the applicant ’ s stay in that facility had ended.

12. The Court considers therefore that the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar was introduced more than six months after his transfer out of that prison and should be rejected as belated in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev              Deputy Registrar President