THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 22690\/17
\nAleksandr Viktorovich GRIBOV against Russia
\nand 4 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26\u00a0February 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Branko Lubarda, President,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0A.\u00a0Vinogradov, a lawyer practising in Kostroma.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by Mr\u00a0M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were detained in the \u201cspecial detention centres\u201d for administrative arrestees in Kostroma and in the Kostroma Region. The periods of their detention are specified in the appended table.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained about the detention conditions in the \u201cspecial detention centres\u201d for administrative arrestees in Kostroma and in the Kostroma Region and about absence of a remedy against inadequate conditions of detention. Articles\u00a03 and 13, to which they referred, read as follows:<\/p>\n
Article 3<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Article 13<\/p>\n
\u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention were adequate. The applicants maintained their complaints.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0136-40, ECHR 2016; Ananyev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, 10\u00a0January 2012; and Butko v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a032036\/10, 12\u00a0November 2015).<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes with satisfaction that after the notification of the present cases to the Government an inspection was carried out with regard to the facilities where the applicants had been detained. Moreover, upon some of the applicants\u2019 complaints to domestic authorities, an inspection of the detention facilities was carried out shortly after the applicants\u2019 release. The groups of inspectors consisted of public supervisors, prosecutors and police officers.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0According to the information submitted to the Court as a result of the above inspections, all the applicants disposed of more than 4\u00a0sq.\u00a0m. of personal space, had individual sleeping places and bedding, sufficient light and air. This information was substantiated by the layout plans of the detention centres, extracts from the cell population registers, each applicant\u2019s individual card indicating the cells in which they had been detained and the periods of their detention, and other documents.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The information submitted by the applicants in the application forms, in particular the information on the place and periods of their detention, was imprecise. After receiving the Government\u2019s observations the applicants failed to present any specific counterarguments and only claimed that the Government had failed to respond to each complaint raised by them.<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0On the basis of the materials in its possession the Court concludes that the applicants disposed of more than 4\u00a0sq.\u00a0m of personal space. The Court has previously stated that in cases where a detainee disposed of more than 4\u00a0sq.\u00a0m of personal space in multi-occupancy accommodation and where therefore no issue with regard to the question of personal space arises, other aspects of physical conditions of detention remain relevant for the Court\u2019s assessment of adequacy of an applicant\u2019s conditions of detention under Article\u00a03 of the Convention (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0140).<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0In the present cases the Court notes that the parties have submitted little unsubstantiated information on other aspects of the physical conditions of detention, such as access to hygienic facilities, privacy when using toilet, and outdoor activities. On the basis of the information in its possession, taking into account the short periods of detention and sufficient personal space, the Court does not consider that those aspects of the physical conditions of detention were such as to amount to a form of degrading or inhuman treatment (see, for a similar reasoning, Pavlenko v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a042371\/02, \u00a7\u00a081, 1\u00a0April 2010).<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the complaints under Article\u00a03 are manifestly ill\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 (a) and 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, the applicants did not have an \u201carguable claim\u201d of a violation of a substantive Convention provision and, therefore, Article\u00a013 of the Convention is inapplicable to this part of the applications. It follows that the complaints under Article\u00a013 must also be rejected pursuant to Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n
Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 March 2019.<\/p>\n
Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Branko Lubarda
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n | Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n | Applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n | Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n Place of residence<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Start and end date of detention<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 08\/07\/1979<\/p>\n Zarubino<\/td>\n 17\/01\/2017 to 22\/01\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 11\/01\/1962<\/p>\n Kostroma<\/td>\n 26\/01\/2017 to 01\/02\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 20\/06\/1975<\/p>\n Kostroma<\/td>\n 20\/01\/2017 to 25\/01\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 09\/08\/1978<\/p>\n Karavayevo<\/td>\n 25\/01\/2017 to 04\/02\/2017<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 28\/04\/1974<\/p>\n Kostroma<\/td>\n 15\/12\/2016 to 19\/12\/2016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n |