Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Данилин (Danilin) против России» [англ.]

s of detention in the prisons concerned had not been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
34. The applicant disagreed, and maintained his complaints.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

35. In as much as the Government claim that the applicant has not complied with the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court finds that the Government have not specified with sufficient clarity the type of action which would have been an effective remedy in their view, nor have they provided any further information as to how such action could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicant with adequate redress. Even if the applicant, who at the relevant time was still in detention pending trial, had been successful, it is unclear how the claim for damages could have afforded him immediate and effective redress. In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, No. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), No. 42096/98, 4 March 2003). For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, No. 26853/04, §§ 204 - 06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, §§ 55 - 58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).
36. In the light of the parties' submissions, the Court finds that the applicant's complaints raise serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established.

2. Merits

37. Having observed the documents submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the case file contains sufficient documentary evidence to confirm the applicant's allegations of severe overcrowding in pre-trial detention facilities SIZO No. 3 and SIZO No. 5 in Moscow, which is in itself sufficient to conclude that Article 3 of the Convention has been breached.
38. The Court would note that as regards both detention centres the existence of a deplorable state of affairs may be inferred from the information contained in Order No. 7 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences of 31 January 2005 (see paragraphs 28 and 30 above), which expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in these detention centres in 2004.
39. The Court also observes that in its judgments in the cases of Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, §§ 73 - 79, 1 March 2007; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, §§ 31 - 41, 10 May 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 30 - 41, 7 June 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, §§ 40 - 51, 10 July 2008; Belashev v. Russia, No. 28617/03, §§ 50 - 60, 4 December 2008; Novinskiy v. Russia, No. 11982/02, §§ 106 - 08, 10 February 2009; Bychkov v. Russia, No. 39420/03, §§ 33 - 43, 5 March 2009; and Buzhinayev v. Russia, No. 17679/03, §§ 26 - 36, 15 October 2009, it has previously examined the conditions of detention in SIZO No. 3 in 2000 - 2003 and found them to have been incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on account of severe overcrowding.
39. Since the Government did not support its own submissions with reference to any original documentation, the Court is prepared to accept the indications given as sufficient confirmation of the applicant's point that the overcrowding of cells was a problem in both detention facilitie

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7