CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } FIRST SECTION Application no. 67481/12 Yuriy Mikhaylovich VINOKHODOV against Russia lodged on 17 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovich Vinokhodov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Magnitnyy. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Background of the case On 29 November 2008 the applicant was arrested on charges of drug dealing. The next day he was placed in the temporary detention centre (IVS) of Orel. The cell of the IVS, where the applicant stayed during that period, was poorly lit and ventilated. The detainees had no access to water and depended on its irregular supply by the guards. There was no sink or lavatory in the cell and the applicant had to defecate in a bucket. He had to sleep on a simple plywood construction, as no beds were available. On 7 December 2008 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to a remand prison. On 19 June 2009 the Orel Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. B.     Civil compensation proceedings On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance claiming compensation for the inadequate conditions of detention in the IVS. In the lawsuit he specifically informed the court that he wished to be participate in the proceedings personally in order to make submissions. On 25 May 2012 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Orel (District Court) held a hearing in the above case. The applicant was absent. As to his plea of personal participation, the District Court noted: “Mr Vinokhodov was not summoned in the hearing as neither the Code of Civil Procedure, nor other federal laws bestow upon persons serving sentence in custodial facilities a right to personal participation in court hearings (be these persons claimants, respondents, third parties or another party to proceedings), whereas the Code on Execution of Sentences provides a possibility of bringing convicts from custodial facilities only with a view to their participation in criminal proceedings (Article 77.1 of the said Code).” The representatives of the Ministry of Finance (the respondent) and of the regional police department (summoned as the third party) were likewise absent. They submitted written observations asking the court to decide the case on the basis thereof. Having examined the materials, the District Court entertained the lawsuit in part, granting the applicant 1,500 roubles (approximately 37 euros) in compensation of unfit conditions of detention in the IVS from 29 November to 7 December 2008. The applicant appealed, claiming, in particular, that the proceedings were not adversarial. On 25 July 2012 the Orel Regional Court (Regional Court) examined the applicant’s appeal in his absence. It appears that the representatives of the respondent and of the third party did not participate in the hearing as well. The court noted that: “Mr Vinokhodov’s arguments that the [District] court, by refusing to bring him into the hearing, has violated his right to defence, does not invalidate the [District Court’s] judgment, as it is based on erroneous interpretation of Article 77.1 of the Code on Execution of Sentences. The procedural legislation does not provide transport of convicts with a view to their participation in proceedings. At the same time, the [District] court has informed the applicant of his right to a representative ...” Having rejected the other arguments of the appeal, the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. C.     Other proceedings In addition to the above, the applicant brought two sets of administrative proceedings seeking to invalidate an expert examination and trying to challenge certain actions of an investigator at the stage of preliminary investigation. By decisions of 24 April and 25 July 2012 the Orel Regional Court rejected the lawsuits without examination on merits as these complaints should have had been examined in the course of the earlier criminal proceedings against the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant alleges that the conditions of his detention in IVS of Orel were inhuman and degrading. 2.     He complains that the refusal to bring him to hearings in his civil case violated Article 6 of the Convention, in particular, the principle of equality of arms. 3.     The applicant claims several violations of the same Article in connection with the proceedings which ended in decisions of the Orel Regional Court of 24 April and 25 July 2012. 4.     Lastly, with reference to Article 13 of the Convention, he complains that there existed no effective remedies against the above violations. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to adduce evidence, as well as challenge the evidence produced by the other parties to the proceedings?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected?