Communicated on 7 March 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 39087/15 Volodya AVETISYAN against Armenia lodged on 31 July 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Volodya Avetisyan , is an Armenian national who was born in 1963 and is detained in Ptghunk . He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Revazyan , a lawyer practising in Yerevan.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

According to the order of the Minister of Justice of 28 February 2012, Nubarashen remand prison had the capacity to house up to 820 inmates.

According to the prison ’ s letter dated 25 November 2014, as of 30 April 2014 there were 962 inmates in the prison, while as of 30 October 2014 their number increased to 1040.

The applicant was detained in the prison from 23 September 2013 to 11 March 2015. Between 23 September 2013 and 17 July 2014 the applicant was detained in cell no. 013. Starting from 18 July 2014 he was detained in cell no. 007. The surface area of those cells, in the applicant ’ s submission, was approximately 15-20 sq. m, including the sanitary facilities within the cells.

In the applicant ’ s submission, the number of inmates in both cells varied, in various periods, between 3 and 8 inmates. According to the prison ’ s letter of 18 November 2014, the number of inmates in the applicant ’ s cells was as follows: 8 inmates on 27 October 2013; 8 inmates on 27 December 2013; 8 inmates on 27 February 2014; 6 inmates on 27 April 2014; 5 inmates on 27 June 2014; 8 inmates on 27 August 2014; and 3 inmates on 27 October 2014.

As regards other conditions of his detention, the applicant submits that there was no central ventilation system in the prison. Since there was no heating system, the cells were heated by the inmates using electric heaters. A foul smell was constantly present in the prison. The applicant spent the whole period of his detention in the cells, except for a one-hour daily outdoor walk. Some of the inmates smoked cigarettes in the applicant ’ s cells. Cockroaches and other insects were often observed in the living areas of the cells, but the prison administration did nothing to prevent their presence.

On 22 January 2015 the applicant applied to the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan (“the District Court”) with a civil claim against the penitentiary service and the prison, seeking to obtain acknowledgement of a breach of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention due to the conditions of his detention, and to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On the same date the District Court declared the applicant ’ s civil claim inadmissible on the grounds that such claim was not within the competence of a court of general jurisdiction, but rather within the competence of the Administrative Court, due to its public law nature.

The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 2 March 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision, reasoning that the applicant ’ s claim raised criminal law matters, which were within the scope of courts of general jurisdiction.

On 29 April 2015 the District Court again declared the applicant ’ s claim inadmissible, reasoning that the applicant ’ s claim was not of a criminal law nature.

The applicant appealed against that decision.

On 6 July 2015 the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision, but decided to supplement its reasoning. The Civil Court of Appeal held that the applicant ’ s claim was within the competence of courts of general jurisdiction, namely the District Court, but such claim was of a criminal law nature and could not be examined in accordance with the rules of civil procedure.

The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.

On 26 August 2015 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in Nubarashen remand prison.

The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he had no effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention at Nubarashen remand prison amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , § § 101-141, ECHR 2016)? The Government are requested to specify, on the basis of the relevant documents to be produced before the Court, the exact size of the applicant ’ s cells and the number of inmates held in those cells at any given period during the applicant ’ s detention between 23 September 2013 and 11 March 2015.

2 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about the inadequate conditions of his detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, did the applicant exhaust those remedies ?