Communicated on 8 September 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 23540/15 Konstantin Yanovich LYUFI against Russia lodged on 6 May 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Konstantin Yanovich Lyufi , is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Nizhniy Tagil . He is represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Levenok , a lawyer practising in Krasnodar.

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

On 21 December 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to four years ’ imprisonment. The applicant was transferred to a correctional colony to serve his sentence.

On 9 July 2013 unrelated criminal proceedings were instituted against an unidentified person on suspicion of fraud committed in 2009. The applicant was questioned as a suspect.

On 2 August 2013 the chief investigator of the Department of the Interior of the Prikubanskiy District of Krasnodar decided to require him to give an undertaking not to leave his city of residence.

On 9 October 2013 the applicant was transferred from the correctional colony where he was serving his sentence to remand prison IZ-23/1 in Krasnodar to take part in investigative actions. The remand prison was overcrowded and inmates had to take turns to sleep. The physical and sanitary conditions in the cells were poor, as was the quality of the food served to inmates. The applicant referred specifically to cells 141 and 142, where he was detained between 10 October 2013 and 11 June 2014 and 17 January and 20 March 2015, respectively.

On 21 November 2013 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”) decided to remand the applicant in custody for two months to 21 January 2014. The District Court held that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might resume his criminal activities, obstruct the establishment of the truth, interfere with witnesses or escape if he was not detained. In particular, the District Court took into consideration the fact that, in accordance with Article 79 of the Criminal Code, the applicant might take advantage of conditional early release.

On 29 November 2013 charges of fraud were brought against the applicant.

On 2 December 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 21 November 2013 on appeal.

On 31 December 2013 the prosecutor approved a bill of indictment and the case was sent to the District Court for trial.

On 20 January 2014 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for two months, until 20 March 2014, holding that the circumstances which had prompted the application of a custodial measure had not changed.

On 8 April 2014 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to four years and six months ’ imprisonment to take account of the previous unserved sentence .

On 26 May 2014 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal and increased the sentence to seven years ’ imprisonment.

On 13 October 2014 a judge at the Supreme Court of Russia referred the case to the Presidium of the Regional Court for examination in a cassation review procedure.

On 19 November 2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 8 April 2014 and the appeal decision of 26 May 2014 because the applicant had been convicted without a preliminary hearing. The case was remitted for fresh examination to the District Court and the applicant ’ s detention was extended for three months, until 19 February 2015.

On 16 February 2015 the District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for two months to 19 April 2015, finding again that the circumstances which had prompted the custodial measure had not changed.

On 2 March 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to five years ’ imprisonment to take account of the previous unserved sentence.

The above judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 March 2015.

While waiting for hearings in his case to start the applicant was detained in the holding area of the District Court in a metal cage measuring two square metres. A nearby cell of the same size was occupied by a guard dog.

The applicant was also held in a metal cage during the hearings.

On the days of the court hearings the applicant did not receive sufficient food (most of the time he received dry snacks and had limited access to drinking water) and was deprived of walks outside.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention at the remand prison (overcrowding and appalling material and sanitary conditions in the cells) and the conditions of his detention at the court (caging in the holding area and courtroom and a lack of food).

The applicant further complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand was unlawful (after 19 November 2014) and not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. I n the light of the specific allegations made by the applicant, were the conditions of his detention in remand prison no. IZ-23/1 in Krasnodar compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-66, 10 January 2012)?

2. Were the conditions of the applicant ’ s confinement at the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Was the applicant subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his confinement in the holding area of that court and on account of the alleged lack of food and access to fresh air on the days of the court hearings (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia , no. 3811/02, §§ 101-10, 12 February 2009) ?

(b) Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , ( nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08 , §§ 113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017 )?

3. Was the applicant ’ s detention on remand after 19 November 2014 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Do the relevant decisions indicate any particular reason for the need to continue holding the applicant in custody (see Eduard Shabalin v. Russia , no. 1937/05 , §§ 33-37, 16 October 2014) ?

4. Was the applicant ’ s detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and were the proceedings conducted with “special diligence”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Zherebin v. Russia , no. 51445/09, §§ 45-63, 24 March 2016)?