CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 9 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 24883/13 Aleksandr Yuryevich YEFIMENKO against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   December 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges,   André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Yuryevich Yefimenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lived in Medvedovskaya of the Krasnodar Region prior to his conviction. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     Between 8 October 2011 and 27 September 2012 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-23/1 in Krasnodar. The prison was allegedly overcrowded. 4 .     On 24 March 2013 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court, which read as follows: “Preliminary complaint. I, Yefimenko Aleksandr Yuryevich, was convicted ... to a prison term of nine years. I consider that [my rights under] Article 3... of the European Convention were infringed. I request you to register my preliminary complaint and to send me an application form.” 5 .     On 26 June 2013 the Court received the completed application form which was dated 3 June 2013. It contained, among other things, a detailed description of the applicant’s conditions of detention in remand prison IZ ‑ 23/1 of Krasnodar. COMPLAINT 6.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar between 8 October 2011 and 27 September 2012. THE LAW 7.     The Government submitted that the complaint had been introduced out of time: it had been raised only in the application form of 3 June 2013, whereas the period of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 had ended on 27 September 2012. 8.     The Court must therefore establish the date of introduction of the complaint. 9.     The Court has consistently held that a complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17   September 2009; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom , 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172, and Guerra and Others v. Italy , 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I). 10 .     In the present case the applicant’s first letter did not contain any description of the impugned facts, beyond a mention that he had been sentenced to a prison term of nine years (see paragraph 4 above). The facts of the complaint pertaining to the conditions of his detention were stated for the first time in the application form of 3 June 2013. 11 .     In these circumstances, the Court finds that the complaint about the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar was introduced on 3 June 2013, eight months and six days after the applicant’s stay in that facility had ended. 12.     The Court considers therefore that the applicant’s complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-23/1 of Krasnodar was introduced more than six months after his transfer out of that prison and should be rejected as belated in accordance with Article   35   §   1 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev Deputy Registrar   President