FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos . 47696/09 and 79806/12 Vladimir Yevgenyevich MARKOV against Russia and Aleksey Nikolayevich BELENTSOV against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:

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

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 7 August 2009 and 22 July 2012 respectively,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

2 . The applicant in the second case, Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Belentsov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Syktyvkar. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Mezak, a lawyer practising in Syktyvkar.

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

5 . On 5 November 2010 the second applicant was transported by prison van and rail between correctional colonies in the Komi Republic. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his transport were characterised by overcrowding and restricted access to natural light and air

6 . On unspecified dates the applicants brought civil claims for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of their detention and transport. By final judgment of 11 February 2009, the Novgorod Regional Court granted Mr Markov ’ s claim in part, awarding him 15,000 Russian roubles. By final judgment of 23 January 2012, Mr Belentsov ’ s claim was rejected by the Supreme Court of Komi.

COMPLAINTS

7 . The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about their conditions of detention in the Russian penitentiary facilities and the conditions of transport between them.

THE LAW

8 . The applicants ’ complaints are related to their conditions of detention in the Russian penitentiary facilities or the conditions of transport between them. Having regard to the fact that the respective periods of their detention or transport had ended more than six months before their applications were lodged with the Court, the Court must determine whether the applicants complied with the six-month requirement imposed by Article 35 of the Convention.

9 . The Government submitted that, since the adoption of the Kalashnikov judgment (see Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ VI), the Court had consistently maintained its position that there had been no effective remedy in the Russian legal system for the complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention. That case-law was accessible to the applicants and they should have been aware of its existence. In those circumstances, they should have lodged their applications within six months of the end of the situation they complained about, that is, the period of their detention in the remand prison or the latest day of transport between facilities.

10 . The applicants replied that the domestic courts had failed to award them an adequate compensation; therefore, the Court should find a violation of Article 3 in their cases.

11 . The Court reiterates that the six-month period normally runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of (see Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02 , § 108, 27 May 2010, with further references).

12 . The Court further recalls its constant position that, given the present state of Russian law, a civil action for compensation for inadequate conditions of detention or transport has not been considered an effective remedy ( see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08 , §§ 113-118, 10 January 2012, and Guliyev v. Russia , no. 24650/02, §§ 54 ‑ 56, 19 June 2008 ). T he Court ’ s case ‑ law on the absence of an effective remedy for complaints concerning inadequate conditions of detention or transport being sufficiently established, the applicants had at their disposal a period of six months following their departure from the penitentiary facility or the latest day of their transport, during which they should have ascertained the conditions on the admissibility of an application to the Court and, if necessary, obtained appropriate legal advice. However, they did not submit their application within that time period.

13 . The Court has recently examined a similar situation and reached the conclusion that the complaint about the inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months of the day following the applicant ’ s transfer out of the detention facility (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056/11, 5 February 2013 ) . There are no arguments or factual information in the present cases that would warrant a departure from the Court ’ s findings in that decision . The applicants should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial avenue they had made use of, before they lodged their application with the Court. The final disposal of their claims for compensation cannot be relied upon as starting a fresh time-limit for their complaint s.

14 . It follows that their complaints about allegedly inadequate conditions of detention and transport 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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

André Wampach Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar President