CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 2018

.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 } .sC0E715B8 { font-family:Arial; font-size:1pt; font-style:italic } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9FB98CC4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14585/17 and 34196/17 Aleksandr Valeryevich SAMESOV against Russia and Yuriy Aleksandrovich KUDRYAVTSEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting 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 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 applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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.     Complaints under Article   3 of the Convention 1.     Application no. 14585/17 The Government submitted that the applicant, Mr Samesov (application no. 14585/17), had applied to the Court belatedly and that the Court’s Registry had erred in the determination of the introduction date of his application. The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the introduction date of the present application should be 30 January 2017, the date when the applicant’s lawyer dispatched the envelope containing the application form to the Court, and not 11 January 2017, the date when the applicant signed his application form. It reiterates that the date of introduction of the application is the date of the postmark when the applicant dispatched a duly completed application form to the Court (Rule 47 § 6 (a) of the Rules of Court; see also Brežec v. Croatia , no. 7177/10, §   29, 18 July 2013, and Abdulrahman v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 66994/12, 5 February 2013). The applicant did not put forward any convincing explanation or special circumstances which could justify a different approach. Having regard to the fact that the most recent occasion of the applicant’s transport of which he complained to the Court had taken place on 18 July 2017, his complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six -month rule. The application should therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Application no. 34196/17 Turning to application no. 34196/17, the Court observes that rare occasions of transport of the applicant during the years of his detention, being separated by lengthy periods of his stay in detention facilities without any instances of transport, do not form “a continuous situation” for the purpose of calculating the six-month time-limit set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia , nos. 43710/07 and 3   others, §§ 76-79, 17 January 2012). Furthermore, the Court has previously accepted that no remedy was available to applicants in relation to conditions of transport in Russia and that the six-month time-limit should be calculated from the date the alleged ill ‑ treatment had ceased (see Idalov v. Russia (no.   2), no. 41858/08, § 115, 13 December 2016). The Court therefore finds that the complaint about the applicant’s transport before March 2017 was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the applicant’s transport on two occasions in March 2017, the Court finds it established that they lasted for no more than 40 minutes each and that the applicant was not transported in an overcrowded van. Having examined the materials submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that the complaint in this respect does not disclose a violation of Article 3 the Convention in the light of its established case-law (see, by contrast, Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012). The Court thus considers that this part of application no. 34196/17 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to 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 14 June 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention during transport)   No. Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant name Date of birth/   Representative name and location Means of transport Start and end date Sq. m per inmate Specific grievances     14585/17 30/01/2017 Aleksandr Valeryevich Samesov 22/06/1987 Konakov Andrey Pavlovich   St Petersburg van 17/05/2016 to 18/07/2016 0.1 m²     overcrowding, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, no or restricted access to toilet       34196/17 18/04/2017 Yuriy Aleksandrovich Kudryavtsev 22/03/1951     van 27/03/2017 to 27/03/2017   van 31/03/2017 to 31/03/2017   lack of fresh air, no ventilation, no or restricted access to toilet   see above