THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF LESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 17181\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 April 2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Lesnikovich v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Branko Lubarda, President, Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 17181\/09) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr AleksandrGennadyevichLesnikovich (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 25 November 2008.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A.L. Burkov, a lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 December 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Nizhnevartovsk, in the Khanty-Mansiyisk Region.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Unrecorded detention in Noyabrskpolice station<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0At the material time the applicant leased a flat in a block of flats in Noyabrsk (a town in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region). On 16 February 2006 at about 6 a.m. the applicant\u2019s neighbours called the police. They informed the police of loud screams that they had heard from the applicant\u2019s flat. Two police officers arrived at 6 a.m. and took the applicant to the Noyabrskpolice station (\u201cthe police station\u201d).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0According to a logbook of people taken to the police station, the applicant arrived at the station at 7.05 a.m. and was handed over to an investigator \u201cfor further proceedings\u201d at 7.55 a.m. on 16 February 2006. According to the applicant, the investigator, Ch., repeatedly questioned him as \u201ca witness to the incident\u201d.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, he was released on 16 February 2006 at about 11 p.m. and summoned to appear before the investigator the next day at 2 p.m. The applicant alleges that he was under the constant supervision of police officers between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. on 16 February 2006 and was not allowed to leave the police station.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In 2011 the applicant sued the police station, claiming compensation for unrecorded detention.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 August 2011 the Noyabrsk Town Court of the Yamalo\u2011Nenetskiy Region dismissed his claim.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 5 September 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. However,he was required to correct some errors in his claim.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 September 2011 the Noyabrsk Town Court returned the claim to the applicant, stating that he had failed to correct the errors in his claim.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention in the IVS<\/em><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 February 2006 the investigator opened a criminal investigation into an offence ofrape. The applicant formally became a suspect. On the same day the investigator arrested him and drew up formal records of his arrest. Between 18 February 2006 and 22 June 2006 the applicant was kept in the temporary detention centre of the Noyabrskpolice station (\u201cthe IVS\u201d).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant provided the following description of the conditions in the IVS. He was held in cell no. 9 measuring 15 sq. m. The cell housed between nine and twelve inmates who took it in turns to sleep. The overcrowding caused a lot of conflict and tension between the inmates.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The window of the cell measured 0.6 mby 0.3 m and was covered with metal blinds blocking access to daylight and fresh air. There was no ventilation in the cell. The lack of air was aggravated by the detainees\u2019 smoking.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0There was no sink with a tap or toilet. The inmates had to use a bucket, which smelled very bad and was only emptied once a day in the morning. The bucket was not separated from the main area. The dining table was only 1.5 m away from the bucket. The detainees were provided with meals once a day. The quality of the food was completely unsatisfactory. There was not enough drinking water for everybody.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The detainees were allowed to take a shower once every ten days for fifteen minutes, and there were three shower heads for nine to ten people. The drains in the shower room did not work, and the water temperature was not adjustable. There was no changing room, the detainees had to undress before the shower and dress after it in a corridor. Only twice during the applicant\u2019s detention in the IVS was he allowed to have outdoor exercise.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The ceiling of the cell was covered with mould. The cells were infested with bugs, lice, cockroaches and rats, and the administration did nothing to disinfect the facility.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0It was cold in winter (there was a maximum temperature of 6\u02daC) and hot in summer (a maximum temperature of 45\u02daC).<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The detainees were provided with neither bedding nor items of personal hygiene. They were also unable to buy them in the IVS. Mattresses had tar stains, and there was no possibility to wash clothes. Inmates were not provided with newspapers, reading material,or any information concerning their rights. The applicant was held in a cell with persistent offenders and ill persons.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention in the colony<\/em><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 June 2006 the Noyabrsk Town Court convicted the applicant of rape and sentenced him to six and a half years\u2019 imprisonment in a \u201cstrict\u2011regime correctional colony\u201d.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 August 2006 the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment of 15 June 2006 on appeal. Between 29 September 2006 and 16\u00a0June 2011 the applicant served his sentence in correctional colony IK-8 located in Labytnangi, in theYamalo-Nenetskiy Region.<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s account<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony, and submitted a detailed plan of the accommodation, with a description. The dormitory where he lived consisted of two sections measuring 132 and 144 sq. m respectively and accommodated 230 to 250 individuals.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The sanitary facilities were extremely busy: all the detainees had to use five taps and four toilets. There was not enough water. Water was only available from 5 a.m.to 7 a.m. and from 8 p.m.to 11 p.m. While there was no running water, the detainees had two water tanks at their disposal\u2013 one which contained drinking water and the other which contained water which was not drinkable. Per day, they could use 50 litres of drinking water and 300 litres of water which was not drinkable. This was clearly not enough, since the water in the tanks would be used up by about 10 a.m. The toiletssmelled extremely unpleasant, since there was no water to flush them after 10\u00a0a.m.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The floor of the dormitory was based on a frame made of used railway sleepers impregnated with creosote. It smelled so strongly that the detainees had to leave the windows open permanently, even in winter, to get rid of the smell. The smell caused headaches and the open windows caused colds. The roof of the dormitory had at least eighteen visible leaks and there would be puddles on the floor if it rained. The dining room in the dormitory measured 32 sq. m and was equipped with one electric stove with four burners, one refrigerator and four sockets. The dormitory was infested with rats.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The detainees were allowed to take a shower once a week for fifteen minutes, and there were ten shower heads for up to forty people. Just before the applicant\u2019s release, four extra shower heads were installed, but the time for washing was reduced to ten minutes.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0According to the applicant, in 2008 the detainees were provided with winter clothes only at the end of November when the temperature dropped below minus 28\u02daC.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0The Government\u2019s account<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in IK-8 in Labytnangi, the Government submitted information which can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n 15 March 2007<\/td>\n 19 September 2008<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n 30 October 2009<\/td>\n 14 May 2010<\/td>\n 20 April 2011<\/td>\n 16 July 2011<\/td>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0They also submitted that the toilets had been separated from the canteen and dormitory, and the units had been naturally ventilated and regularly disinfected. No failures in the water or electrical supply system had been identified. Detainees had taken showers weekly and had been provided with food and clothes \u201cin accordance with the established schedule\u201d.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation proceedings concerning conditions of detention in the IVS<\/strong><\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date in 2010, while serving his sentence in the correctional colony, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Noyabrskpolice station and the Russian Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from the poor conditions of his detention in the IVS in 2006. The applicant was not represented in those proceedings.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 July 2010 the Noyabrskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim in his absence.<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 August 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 23 July 2010. He complained in particular that he had not been allowed to personally address the court, despite a request he had made to this effect, and he asked the appeal court to arrange for him to attend the appeal hearing.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 November 2010 the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 July 2010 on appeal. It stated that the law did not make provision for transporting detainees to a civil court hearing.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Domestic provisions relating to conditions of detention in post-trial detention facilities are described in Sergey Babushkinv. Russia(no.\u00a05993\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 21-29, 28 November 2013).<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0For domestic provisions relating to the transfer of detainees to court hearings,see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia(nos. 27236\/05 and 10\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 9-15, 16 February 2016).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention regarding poor conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy to protect his right to decent conditions of detention. The Articles 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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention in the IVS between 18 February and 22\u00a0June 2006<\/strong><\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaint.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, it is only when the situation ends that the six-month period starts to run (see SabriG\u00fcne\u015f v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396\/06, \u00a7 54, 29 June 2012, and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064\/90 and 8 others, \u00a7 159, ECHR 2009).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further reiterates its consistent position that in the Russian legal system a civil action for compensation for inadequate conditions of detention has not been considered an effective remedy (see Kalashnikov v.\u00a0Russia (dec.), no. 47095\/99, 18 September 2001; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936\/00, 9 December 2004; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064\/05, \u00a7\u00a055, 1\u00a0June 2006; AndreyFrolov v. Russia, no. 205\/02, \u00a7 39, 29 March 2007; and Norkin v. Russia (dec.), no. 21056\/11, \u00a7 17, 05 February 2013).<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0The Court sees no reason to depart from the above approach in the present case. It notes that the applicant only lodged his complaint regarding poor conditions of detention in 2006 on 5 May 2009, therefore out of time.<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0In view of its above finding that the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 3 was lodged out of time, the Court holds that his complaint under Article 13 is also time-barred (see Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a036156\/04, \u00a7 123, 23 April 2009).<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention in IK-8 in Labytnangi<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/em><\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaintregarding conditions of detention in the correctional colonyisnot manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/em><\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0Article 3<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in IK-8 inLabytnangihad been in full compliance with Article\u00a03 of the Convention (see paragraphs 28-29 above).<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s submissions regarding the conditions of his detention in IK-8 in Labytnangi are presented in paragraphs23-27 above.<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no. 30210\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 90\u201194, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 139\u201165, 10 January 2012). It reiterates in particular that an extreme lack of space in a prison cell, or overcrowding, weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether impugned detention conditions were \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article 3, and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevi\u010dius v. Lithuania, no. 53254\/99, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a036\u201140, 7 April 2005).<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0As to the conditions of detention in post-trial facilities, the Court has alreadyfound violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case in relation to overcrowding, an insufficient number of functioning sinks and toilets, and poor conditions for maintaining personal hygiene (seeSergey Babushkin, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 46-58, 28 November 2013;Butko v.\u00a0Russia, no. 32036\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 54-64, 12 November 2015;and Sklyar v. Russia, no. 45498\/11, \u00a7\u00a7 31-34, 18 July 2017).<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously held that the personal space afforded to the detainees in the dormitory of a correctional facility must be viewed in the context of the wide freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the daytime and their unobstructed access to natural light and air (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138\/02, 16 September 2004). The Court notes that the applicant was afforded 3.4 and 3.9 sq. m of personal space during the last year of his detention. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the level of privacy available to the applicant was insufficient to comply with the standards set out in Article 3 of the Convention. For about four years the applicant was housed in a dormitory with more than 100 other people, where he had less than 2 sq. m of personal space. Furthermore, in the Court\u2019s view, during all the periods of the applicant\u2019s detention, the sanitary facilities available were insufficient to accommodate the needs of the detainees.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that, in the instant case, the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention were inadequate. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0Article 13<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Russian Government in cases concerning inadequate conditions of detention, and has found them to be lacking in many regards. The Court has held, in particular, that the Government were unable to show what redress could have been afforded to an applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or any other State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant\u2019s personal situation alone (seeButko, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 43-47, with further references).<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court declares this complaint admissible and finds that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for his complaint regarding the conditions of detention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about his unrecorded detention on 16\u00a0February 2006, and the fact that he could not get compensation for his unrecorded detention.He relied on Article 5 of the Convention, which provides:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.\u201d<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0The Government stated that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaintregarding unrecorded detention, and that his complaint regarding compensation for unlawful detention was manifestly ill-founded.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaint.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Unrecorded detention<\/strong><\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention obliges applicants to firstly use the remedies that are normally available and sufficient in the domestic legal system to enable them to obtain redress for the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain, in practice as well as in theory, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 51-52, Reports 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, \u00a7\u00a7 65-67, Reports 1996-IV).<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has previously held that, in accordance with its case-law, where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used. In respect of Russia, it has held that the state of Russian law, which did not provide for State liability for unrecorded detention, rendered any civil-law remedy ineffective in a situation of unrecorded detention, such as the one at issue in the present case (see W\u0142och v. Poland, no. 27785\/95, \u00a7 90, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, andIvan Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 30271\/03, \u00a7 79, 25 November 2010).<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any effective remedies, the six-month period runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573\/01, 2 July 2002, andVarnava and Others, cited above, \u00a7 157, ECHR 2009).<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the applicantcomplained unrecorded detention on 16 February 2006. Helodged his complaint on 5 May 2009, more than six months after the date of his detention. Moreover, even assuming that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was an effective remedy, the applicant failed to correct the defects in his claim, which had been returned to him on 28 September 2011 by the Noyabrsk Town Court, and he did not lodge an appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for non-compliance with, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation for unlawful detention<\/strong><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a05 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v.\u00a0Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760\/06, \u00a7 182, ECHR 2012; SvetoslavDimitrov v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no. 55861\/00, \u00a7 76, 7 February 2008; and \u00c7a\u011fda\u015f\u015eahin v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 28137\/02, \u00a7 34, 11 April 2006).<\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that no such violation was established by the domestic authorities in the present case. Further, having regard to the conclusions above regarding the admissibility of the complaint under Article 5\u00a0\u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court is precluded from considering whether there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1-4 of the Convention, which is aprerequisite for the examination of any Article 5 \u00a7 5 claim (see, mutatis mutandis, Abashev v. Russia, no. 9096\/09, \u00a7 35, 27 June 2013, andNedorostkova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44914\/09, \u00a7 7 June 2016).<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0Therefore, since no violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1-4 has been established by either the domestic authorities or the Court in the present case, the applicant\u2019s complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 5 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant further complained of the fact that the civil proceedings in which he had challenged his conditions of detention in the IVS had been conducted in his absence on the ground that the domestic law did not provide for the participation of convicted detainees in civil proceedings.He relied on Article 6 of the Convention,the relevant part of which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0The Government acknowledged that the applicant\u2019s right to a fair trial had been violated.<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant maintained his complaint.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one\u2019s case effectively before a court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416\/01, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a059\u201160, ECHR 2005-II). The Court\u2019s analysis of alleged violations of the right to a fair trial in respect of cases where incarcerated applicants have complained about their absence from hearings in civil proceedings includes the following elements: examination of the manner in which domestic courts assessed the question of whether the nature of the dispute required the applicants\u2019 personal presence, and determination of whether the domestic courts put in place any procedural arrangements aimed at guaranteeing their effective participation in the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a048, 16\u00a0February 2016).<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, cited above, 16\u00a0February 2016, the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the domestic courts deprived the applicant of the opportunity to present his case effectively, and failed to meet their obligation to ensure respect for the principle of a fair trial.<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has also examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as those complaints fall within the Court\u2019s competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 38,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that this sum was excessive.<\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The Court awards the applicant EUR 9,250 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not claim the reimbursement of any costs or expenses.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaints concerning the conditions of detention in the correctional colony and the lack of an effective remedy for this complaint,and the complaint regarding an unfair trial, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,EUR 9,250 (nine thousand two hundred and fifty euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable,in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Dismissesthe remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 April 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 BrankoLubarda
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Period of detention<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Unitno.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Dormitory surface area in sq. m<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Number of sleeping places<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Number of washbasins and lavatories<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 29 September 2006 \u2013<\/p>\n 9<\/td>\n 330<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n 8and 12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 15 March 2007 \u2013<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 143<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n 5 and 6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 19 September 2008 \u2013<\/p>\n 7<\/td>\n 321<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n No information<\/td>\n 6 and 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 30 October 2009 \u2013<\/p>\n 10 (accommodated in building previously occupied by units 7 and 8)<\/td>\n 321<\/td>\n 122<\/td>\n 119<\/td>\n 6 and 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 18 May 2010 \u2013<\/p>\n 10<\/td>\n 321<\/td>\n 96<\/td>\n 95<\/td>\n 6 and 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 25 April 2011 \u2013<\/p>\n 10<\/td>\n 321<\/td>\n 84<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n 6 and 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nDeputyRegistrar\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n