Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Щербаков (Shcherbakov) против России» [англ.]

e prison administration because the complaints would not have brought about any tangible results.
68. The Court would underline that the Government merely noted that the applicants had not lodged any complaints with the domestic authorities concerning the conditions of detention. The Government neither specified what type of representation would, in their view, have been an effective remedy, nor did they provide any further information as to how such a representation could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicants with adequate redress. In the absence of such evidence, the Court finds that the Government have not substantiated their claim that the remedy the applicants had allegedly failed to make use of was an effective one (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, No. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004; Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), No. 42096/98, 4 March 2003; and Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia (dec.), No. 6954/02, 28 June 2007).
69. The Court accordingly rejects the Government's objection.
70. The Court finds that it needs to examine the applicant's compliance with the six-month rule, laid out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, No. 6954/02, §§ 79 - 81, 29 January 2009).
71. The Court notes that in his application the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Tula IZ-77/1, without giving the exact dates of his detention and details concerning prison transfers. Having examined the parties' submissions in this connection, the Court finds that the applicant was in fact detained in IZ-77/1 on two occasions, first between 31 October 1995 and 28 November 1999, and then from 12 May 2000 to 15 July 2002. During the period between these terms the applicant was held in a different prison, in respect of which he made no specific complaints or allegations. Given the date of introduction of the case to the Court and the fact that the mentioned two terms are separated by a sufficiently lengthy stretch of time, the Court finds that the applicant has complied with the six-month rule only in respect of the period between 12 May 2000 and 15 July 2002. Accordingly, it will examine the applicant's allegations and grievances only concerning this term of his detention.
72. The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

73. The Government contested the applicant's submissions concerning the overcrowding of cells in that prison. The Government were unable to provide the Court with copies of original prison documentation, relying on prison records confirming the destruction of these documents on 15 April 2002, 28 March 2004 and 13 June 2006.
74. The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaints.
75. The Court would note that the parties disagree on just about every aspect of the applicants' conditions of detention, including the size of the cells and the number of beds. Most importantly, the Government deny that the cells in question were overcrowded or cramped, and have submitted official certificates and drawings of the cells provided by the authorities of the detention centre in question to that effect, whereas the applicant insisted on his initial account of events.
76. The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ahmet {Ozka

> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15