CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s87818EE6 { width:187.95pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s642D23A2 { margin-left:70.65pt; 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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 37477/10 Viktor Volodymyrovych SHUMSKYY against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   September 2018 as a committee composed of:   Yonko Grozev, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE Between 9 April 2009 and 16 June 2010 the applicant was detained in the Luhansk pre-trial detention centre (the SIZO). The applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention concerning inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.   On 19 February 2016 the Government informed the Court that they were not in a position to submit observations on the case as all the necessary documents remained in the city of Luhansk currently not controlled by the Ukrainian authorities.   THE LAW A.     The locus standi of Mrs Vira Yuriyevna Shumskaya and Mr   Volodymyr Vasylyovych Shumskyy The Court notes that the applicant died on 26 December 2012, while the case was pending before the Court. The applicant’s parents, Mrs Vira Yuriyevna Shumskaya and Mr Volodymyr Vasylyovych Shumskyy requested to pursue the application on their son’s behalf. As the request is in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse it (see, among other authorities, Dimitar Krastev v. Bulgaria , no. 26524/04, § 42, 12 February 2013, with further references). However, reference will still be made to the applicant throughout the present text. B.     Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) The Court reiterates at the outset that information about the physical conditions of detention falls within the knowledge of the domestic authorities. Accordingly, applicants might experience certain difficulties in procuring evidence to substantiate a complaint in that connection. Still, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide – to the greatest possible extent – some evidence in support of their complaints. The Court has considered as evidence in such situations, for example, written statements by fellow inmates or photographs provided by applicants in support of their allegations (see, Golubenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 36327/06, 5 November 2011). In the present case the applicant’s grievances about the unsatisfactory conditions of his detention and, specifically, about the alleged overcrowding, insufficient number of beds for all inmates in the cell and insufficient hygiene conditions were expressed in general terms and lacked personal details. In particular, the applicant failed to provide information about the type of cell he had been detained in, information about the size of the cell and the number of inmates, what kind of problems in terms of hygiene he had encountered and so forth. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints have not been substantiated and therefore are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Remaining complaints The applicant also raised another complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the length of his detention in the SIZO. Having considered the applicant’s submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so far as the matter complained of are within its competence, it does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Yonko Grozev Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and   13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Facility Start and end date Duration Specific grievances 37477/10 24/06/2010 Viktor Volodymyrovych Shumskyy 19/03/1978   The applicant died on 26/12/2012 Lugansk SIZO   09/04/2009 to 16/06/2010   1 year, 2 months and 8 days Overcrowding, insufficient number of beds for all the inmates in the cell, lack of hygiene, no walks in fresh air on weekends and on holidays