CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s294F11C8 { width:3.2pt; display:inline-block } .sD5C72CDD { width:189.76pt; 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 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 17500/10 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich KARNAUSHKO and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15   December 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 application lodged on 28 February 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr E. Mezak, a lawyer practising in Syktyvkar. The applicants’ complaint under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of their detention was communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). They also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW In the present application, the applicants complained about poor conditions of their detention in the same facility in Syktyvkar on different dates between 3 November 2008 and 11 August 2009. They also argued that they did not have an effective remedy to complain about the inadequate detention conditions. 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). The most recent period of the detention complained of had ended on 11 August 2009. However, the applicants only introduced their application with the Court on 28   February 2010, that is more than six months after the end of the detention. It follows that the application was submitted too late and that it thus is 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Helena Jäderblom Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention ( inadequate conditions of detention ) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Representative name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Specific grievances Other complaints under well-established case-law     17500/10 28/02/2010 (8 applicants) Yevgeniy Anatolyevich KARNAUSHKO 26/01/1979   Andrey Aleksandrovich PAKHTUSOV 08/01/1984   Vladimir Vladimirovich BIBIKOV 06/06/1963   Valeriy Pavlovich USTINOV 09/01/1965   Taras Nikolayevich SHPORTKO 20/10/1983   Sergey Vyacheslavovich PODVOLOTSKIY 30/11/1978   Valeriy Grigoryevich PROSOLOV 24/01/1958   Sergey Nikolayevich CHUKHLOMIN 17/12/1971 Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar Detention centre for administratively arrested persons Syktyvkar; different dates between 03/11/2008 to 11/08/2009   overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention