Communicated on 27 May 2011 and 31 August 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 61582/10 Sergey Aleksandrovich SOLODNIKOV against Russia lodged on 19 August 2010

Additional facts

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

A . First round of criminal proceedings

On 18 April 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, composed of Judge R., convicted the applicant of several drug offences and sentenced him to fifteen years ’ imprisonment. On 20 March 2012 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction. The applicant was transferred to Irkutsk correctional colony no. 3.

B . Quashing of the conviction and the applicant ’ s release from the correctional colony

On 7 August 2012 the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the conviction by way of supervisory review upon the applicant ’ s request, having found that the composition of the first-instance court had been unlawful as Judge R. had previously examined the case concerning the applicants ’ co-accused and therefore should not have taken part in the examination of the case against the applicant. The court remitted the case for a fresh examination to the trial court and ordered the applicant ’ s release from detention against an undertaking not to leave the town.

Between 7 and 16 August 2012 the applicant remained in detention.

On 16 August 2012 he was released from the colony.

C . Second round of criminal proceedings

On 21 August 2012 the applicant ’ s case was sent to the trial court.

On 16 March 2015 the Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted the applicant of several drug offences and sentenced him to ten years and six months ’ imprisonment. The measure of restraint in respect of the applicant was accordingly changed to detention. On the same date he was placed in Krasnoyarsk remand prison IZ-24/1 (SIZO-1).

On 18 June 2015 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant ’ s subsequent cassation appeals were rejected as inadmissible.

D . Conditions of the applicant ’ s detention between 16 March and 8 August 2015

1. Conditions of detention in Krasnoyarsk remand centre IZ-24/1 (SIZO-1)

Between 16 March and 6 June 2015 the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells in Krasnoyarsk remand prison IZ-24/1. During this period, the inmates did not have more than 1.5 sq. m of personal space per person. For instance, he shared with four other inmates cell no. 79, which measured 16 sq. m. The cell was situated near a kennel and the inmates had to listen to dogs barking twenty-four hours a day and were unable to sleep. They were allowed to take a shower once a week. Sometimes they were unable to take it, as they could not regulate the temperature of the water in the shower room. There was no ventilation or access to fresh air. There was no water at night. The food was of poor quality. He submits, without further details, that the remand prison medical unit did not have appropriate equipment and that he did not receive adequate medical supervision or treatment.

The applicant submits statements by inmates T., B., Khu . and Kho. in support of his description of the conditions of detention.

2. Conditions of detention in the prison hospital

After the new arrest the applicant subm itted to the medical unit of IZ ‑ 24/1 documents confirming that every six months he had to undergo inpatient treatment in a specialised medical facility.

Between 6 July and 8 August 2016 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in Krasnoyarsk regional prison hospital KTB-1. He submits that he had to share a room of 20 sq. m with eleven inmates. Two of them were allegedly suffering from acute schizophrenia and three more from epilepsy. The room, which was not equipped with a toilet, was constantly locked, and the applicant could only leave it two or three times a day. The medical personnel allegedly took some unspecified medicines from him and did not return them, despite the applicant ’ s complaints.

On 8 August 2015 the applicant was transferred to Irkutsk correctional colony IK-3.

E . Compensation Act proceedings

On two occasions, on 15 and 30 September 2015, the applicant claimed compensation for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. By two decisions issued on 18 September and 23 October 2015 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court refused to examine his claims and returned them to him as lodged with various procedural violations.

On 2 November 2015 the applicant again lodged his claim.

On 25 February 2016 a single judge of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed, arguing that the domestic court had failed to assess his submissions and had incorrectly applied domestic law and the Convention.

On 22 June 2016 the Administrative Chamber of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The court established that the proceedings had lasted between 5 August 2007 and 18 June 2015, that is to say for seven years, six months and fifteen days. The case had been complex, it had involved several co-accused, had concerned multiple episodes of sale of drugs and had required numerous witnesses to be questioned. Several hearings had been adjourned either owing to the applicant ’ s poor state of health or at the request of the defence , because of the defendants ’ or lawyers ’ illnesses, their participation in different proceedings or on other grounds. There had been no important periods of inaction attributable to the authorities.

On 10 October 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. He reiterated that the proceedings against him had lasted for seven years, ten months and thirteen days, which had been unreasonable; that on one occasion the conviction had been quashed as the composition of the trial court had been unlawful, which had been clearly attributable to the authorities; and that the applicant has lost his title to a flat as a result of the lengthy criminal proceedings.

On 8 November 2016 a judge of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court rejected the application, having found no grounds to reopen it. In particular, the court rejected as irrelevant the applicant ’ s reference to the unlawful composition of the trial court in 2012. Otherwise, the judge found that the pre-trial stage had not been excessively long, given the complexity of the case. Between 22 October 2008 and 30 September 2010 the hearings had been adjourned twenty-five times owing to illnesses of the defence team members, their participation in other proceedings and on other grounds; four hearings had been adjourned on account of the poor state of health of other co-accused, and seven more owing to the necessity to summon witnesses. Between June and September 2010, as well as during two weeks in January 2011, it had not been possible to hold hearings as the applicant had been in hospital and had not been able to participate. Between October 2008 and April 2011 the court had questioned sixty-nine witnesses and examined forty ‑ four motions. In sum, the court did not find any reason to disagree with the lower courts ’ findings.

On 5 December 2016 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. It appears that his application is pending.

F . Applications for early release

On 3 June 2016 the applicant ’ s mother, acting as the applicant ’ s “ authorised representative”, lodged an application for the applicant ’ s release from detention on medical grounds with a domestic court. On 7 October 2016 the Kuybyshev District Court of Irkutsk refused to examine the application as it could only be lodged by a lawyer or a representative admitted by a court on the basis of the accused ’ s request. On 26 December 2016 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.

At some point the applicant himself lodged an application for early release. On 20 May 2016 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk rejected it, as a detainee was only entitled to lodge such an application after having served two thirds of his or her sentence, which was not the applicant ’ s case. On 11 August 2016 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the refusal on appeal.

In 2017 the applicant lodged a new application for early release. On 2 May 2017 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk rejected the application. The applicant appealed. It appears that the appeal proceedings are now pending.

At some point between 2 May and 19 July 2017 the applicant ’ s application for early release was granted, and he was released from detention.

ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS

By a letter of 30 November 2012 the applicant complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention between 8 and 16 August 2012.

By letters of 6 May and 25 June, 14 August 2015 and subsequent letters the applicant complains of poor conditions of detention between 16 March and 8 August 2015.

By letter of 6 May 2015 and subsequent letters he reiterates his complaint concerning the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty between 7 and 16 August 2012 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the information about the criminal proceedings against the applicant submitted by the parties after communication of the case, as well as the Compensation Act proceedings initiated by the applicant in 2016, was the overall length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Having regard to the information about the applicant ’ s detention after the communication of the case,

(a) Have the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in SIZO-1 of Krasnoyarsk been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

(b) Have the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention between 6 July and 8 August 2015 in the prison hospital KTB-1 of Krasnoyarsk been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?