Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное

Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.07.2010 «Дело Недайборщ (Nedayborshch) против России» [англ.]



(Application No. 42255/04)


(Strasbourg, 1.VII.2010)

<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Nedayborshch v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} <*> Nielsen, Section Registrar,
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Having deliberated in private on 10 June 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


1. The case originated in an application (No. 42255/04) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Sergey Anatolyevich Nedayborshch ("the applicant"), on 15 September 2004.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr P. Finogenov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk and Mr A. Savenkov, former Representative and former acting Representative respectively of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mr G. Matyushkin.
3. The applicant alleged that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions in the temporary detention centre in the town of Kopeysk.
4. On 28 February 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).


I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kopeysk in the Chelyabinsk Region.
6. On 5 December 2003 the applicant was taken into custody in connection with criminal proceedings against him and placed in Chelyabinsk remand prison No. IZ-74/1. On the same day he had a medical examination including an X-ray of his lungs, which revealed no signs of tuberculosis.
7. On various dates between 25 December 2003 and 5 August 2004 the applicant was taken from the remand prison to the temporary detention centre (IVS) located on the premises of the Kopeysk police department. His stays in the centre lasted at least overnight and up to four consecutive days. In total, he spent thirty-six days there.
8. The building in which the Kopeysk IVS was located had been constructed in 1935. Since it had been designed for short-term detention only, its cells were not equipped with flush toilets or running water. Instead, water tanks and water fountains were put at the inmates' disposal. The toilet was located in the courtyard.
9. The applicant submitted that all ten cells of the Kopeysk IVS had been overcrowded and had housed up to six persons. The one-hour outdoor exercise was divided between ten cells, with the consequence that each cell was only allowed some six minutes for outdoor exercise and a visit to the toilet. The Government claimed that it was impossible to establish the number of det

Страницы: 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6


Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.2479 с