CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 June 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9899/19 Sergey Mikhaylovich MONOGOV against Russia lodged on 30 January 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a strict-regime correctional colony, where he serves his life sentence. The applicant complains about obstructed access to natural light, unavailability of natural or forced ventilation, and absence of hot water in the cell, to which he is confined 22.5   hours per day. Whenever taken out of the cell he is confined in a metal cage without any special decision to this effect by the head of the colony and for an unlimited time. The case raises issues under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention in correctional colony no.   IK-6 in the Khabarovsk Region from 9 May 2018 to date been compatible with the standards set out in Article   3 of the Convention? The Government are invited to address the specific allegations made by the applicant.   2.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy in respect of his grievances under Article   3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, §   45, 28   November 2013?