CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 octobre 2016

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s62BA9D11 { width:191.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 39093/10 and 66148/10 Mamuk Vasilyevich NEBIYERIDZE against Russia and Nikolay Anatolyevich IVASKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13   October 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In application no.   39093/10 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. B.     Compliance with the six-month rule for complaints about the conditions of detention In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of detention were submitted belatedly. In particular, the Court accepts the Government’s arguments that the applicants failed to comply with the instructions of the Court and to respect the deadline for the submission of the completed application form. It therefore finds that the date of the introduction of the two cases was not the date when the applicants lodged their first letter with the Court, but rather the date when they sent the completed application form to it, which was on 30   December 2010 for case no. 39093/10 and on 12 January 2011 for case no. 66148/10. The Court observes that the two applicants complained about inadequate conditions of their detention in the Russian penal facilities. The Court reiterates in this respect that in the absence of an effective remedy for that grievance, the complaint about inadequate conditions of detention should have been introduced within six months of the last day of the applicants’ detention (see Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no.   21056/11, 5 February 2013, and Markov and Belentsov v. Russia (dec.), nos. 47696/09 and 79806/12, 10   December 2013). However, the periods complained of had ended more than six months before the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court (for more details see appended table). It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six ‑ month rule set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 § 4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints In application no. 39093/10 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. According to the Court’s established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Having regard to the findings above that the applicant has not complied with the six-month requirement in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention, the Court thus concludes that he did not have an “arguable claim”, and that therefore Article 13 of the Convention is inapplicable to the case. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3   November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     39093/10 30/12/2010 Mamuk Vasilyevich NEBIYERIDZE 16/09/1966 IZ-74/3 Chelyabinsk 24/06/2006 to 14/09/2007 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s)   IVS Kyshtym Chelyabinsk Region 08/10/2006 to 25/09/2007 11 month(s) and 18 day(s)     IZ-74/1 Chelyabinsk 25/09/2007 to 16/09/2009 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)               1,6 m²         Dim light, humidity, stuffiness, concrete floor, rusty iron walls, insects and rodents, stench from the wash basin.       Fewer sleeping places than inmates, no ventilation, constant cigarette smoke, no bedclothes, meal was provided once a day, no outdoor exercises, insects, mice, no privacy when using lavatory that was just two meters away from the dining table.   Dim light, humidity, stuffiness, concrete floor, rusty iron walls, insects and rodents, stench from the wash basin, 40 minutes of daily outdoor exercises.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law     66148/10 12/01/2011 Nikolay Anatolyevich IVASKOV 23/12/1977 IVS Shilka Zabaikalskiy Region 06/02/2009 to 26/04/2010 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 21 day(s)         Dim light, no daylight through metal blinders. The lavatory was not separated from living zone and was 0.3 m away from the dining table, no possibility to take shower, no outdoor exercises, one meal a day, negative temperature in cell in winter time.