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

who had been awarded RUB 30,000 for unlawful detention for fifty-six days and lack of hot food for five days of his detention.
20. The applicant contended that Russian law did not have an established practice of awarding compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the overcrowding of detention facilities. The Civil Code did not contain provisions which would have allowed Russian courts to determine, by reference to any objective criteria, the extent of the damage and make appropriate compensation.
21. The Court has already rejected the identical objection by the Russian Government in case of Nazarov v. Russia (No. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009). It noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist, and that the cases to which the Government had referred did not concern detention in overcrowded cells but rather a detainee's infection with scabies or failure to provide a detainee with food. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

2. The Government's objection on non-compliance
with the six-month rule

22. The Government submitted that they should be answerable under the Convention only for the conditions of the applicant's detention in the six months preceding the introduction of his application. If it were otherwise, they would bear the unjustified burden of having to keep the relevant documents for longer periods of time, especially in cases involving a life sentence. Accordingly, they claimed that the applicant's complaint should be examined only in respect of the period starting from 15 March 2004.
23. The applicant replied that the Government had failed to demonstrate how an extension of the storage period would place an excessive burden on the national authorities.
24. In the instant case the applicant's detention in the Kopeysk IVS was not continuous, as it alternated with periods of his detention in the Chelyabinsk remand prison. The Court, however, reiterates that even where detention was effected in different facilities, it may examine the period of the detention as a whole, provided that the nature of the applicant's grievances relating to the conditions of his detention has remained substantially the same throughout that period (see Buzhinayev v. Russia, No. 17679/03, § 23, 15 October 2009; Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, No. 6954/02, § 83, 29 January 2009; Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, §§ 31 - 33, 19 June 2008; Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007, and also Moiseyev v. Russia, No. 62936/00, § 142, 9 October 2008). In cases concerning the conditions of an applicant's transport between the remand prison and the courthouse, even though the applicant was transported on specific days rather than continuously, the absence of any marked change in the conditions of transport to which he had been routinely subjected created, in the Court's view, a "continuing situation" which brought the entire period complained of within the Court's competence (see Vlasov v. Russia (dec.), No. 78146/01, 14 February 2006, and Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), No. 62936/00, 9 December 2004).
25. The applicant's detention in the Kopeysk IVS was not a continuous situation, but it occurred at regular intervals throughout the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him. It does not appear that there was any material change in the conditions of his detention in the Kopeysk IVS at any given moment in that period. Since the allegation of severe overcrowding remained the main characteristic of conditions with regard to all the cells of the IVS, the Court does not consider that minor differences between the cells, if they existed, would be sufficient to allow it to

> 1 2 3 4 5 ... 6