Communicated on 18 November 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 49698/06 Konstantin Anatolyevich KONDRASHOV against Russia lodged on 20 October 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Konstantin Anatolyevich Kondrashov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Moscow.

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

In 2005 the applicant was charged with a drug-related crime.

On 28 February 2006 the Kolomna Town Court found him guilty and convicted him to eight years ’ imprisonment. On 25 April 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.

The applicant was sent to serve his sentence to correctional facility no. IK-4 in the town of Yelets of the Lipetsk Region.

In October 2006, while serving his sentence, the applicant decided to lodge an application with the Court alleging a number of violations of Article 6 of the Convention committed in the course of the criminal proceedings against him.

On 27 December 2006 officers of the special unit of the correctional facility in charge of controlling the detainees ’ correspondence summoned the applicant to serve him with a letter dated 14 December 2006 from the Court, which had been previously opened. The applicant complained to a higher official of the facility about interference with his correspondence with the Court but to no avail.

On 2 April 2007 the Court sent the applicant a letter acknowledging receipt of his application form.

On 18 April 2007 the special unit ’ s officers served the letter of 2 April 2007 to the applicant opened and without an envelope. There was a handwritten mark on the letter stating an incoming correspondence number and the date of receipt, 16 April 2007, and a signature allegedly belonging to the head of the correctional facility ’ s administration.

On 24 July 2007 the applicant was again summoned to the special unit where he was served with an opened letter from the Court of 4 July 2007 bearing an incoming correspondence number, the date of receipt (23 July 2007) and a signature allegedly belonging to the head of the correctional facility.

On 5 October 2007 and 11 January 2008 the special unit ’ s officers served the applicant with opened letters from the Court dated 19 September and 12 December 2007, respectively, bearing incoming correspondence numbers, dates of receipt and officials ’ signatures.

On 17 July 2010 the applicant was summoned to the office of Major B. In the meantime other officers searched his bunk bed and found a folder containing originals and copies of the applicant ’ s correspondence with the Court. Major B. allegedly threatened the applicant in connection with his application and beat him. He stopped the beatings when officers brought in the applicant ’ s folder. Having studied its contents, the officers claimed that the applicant “had set them up”. To punish the applicant, the facility ’ s administration subjected the applicant to disciplinary responsibility and put him in a punishment ward for five days for “sleeping during daytime”.

On 22 July 2010 the applicant was released from the punishment ward and placed in a solitary confinement cell with no toilet, bed, window or access to drinking water for seven hours. Then Major N. informed the applicant that he was being transferred to a “safe place” for thirty days as there had been threats to his safety from his inmates. The applicant was then placed in EPKT, a stricter regime ward of the correctional facility used to punish those responsible for breaches of prison rules ( « ЕПКТ , единое помещение камерного типа ») , for thirty days.

On 21 February 2012 the Yelets Town Court of the Lipetsk Region decided to release the applicant on parole.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention about the administration ’ s interference with his correspondence with the Court and the hindrance with his right to individual petition.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference compatible with the guarantees of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Has the State complied with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the applicant ’ s application lodged with the Court? In particular:

( a ) Were the letters from the Court addressed to the applicant and/or the applicant ’ s letters to the Court opened and read by the administration of IK-4 of Yelets?

(b) Has the applicant had any discussions or meetings with State officials regarding the content of his application lodged with the Court and subsequent correspondence? The Government are requested to submit details of every meeting and/or discussion of any officials of the administration of IK-4, in particular, date and subject of the discussion/meeting.

(c) Has the applicant been threatened or beaten by any State official in connection with his application before the Court in the course of the meeting with the officer(s) of IK-4 on 17 July 2010?

(d) Has the applicant been sanctioned in any manner, including, but not limited to, placement in a punishment ward ( « ШИЗО » ) and stricter regime ward ( « ЕПКТ » ) for his complaints addressed to the Court?