Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 05.03.2009 «Дело Бычков (Bychkov) против России» [англ.]

- 18, and §§ 30 - 41, 7 June 2007; and Sudarkov v. Russia, No. 3130/03, §§ 40 - 51, 10 July 2008).
42. Having regard to its case-law on the subject and the material submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Although in the present case there is no indication that there was an explicit intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court finds that the fact that the applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates for about three years and three months was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him. The applicant's situation was, furthermore, aggravated by the lack of natural light in the cell, as the cell windows had been covered with metal shutters which blocked access to fresh air and natural light and which, according to the Government, were removed only in November 2002.
43. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in the detention facilities Nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3, Moscow, which must be considered as inhuman within the meaning of this provision.

II. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

44. The applicant further complained that his detention had not been compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as there had been no legal basis for it after 1 October 2002. Article 5, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. Everyone 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:
...(c) the 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...;
45. The Government contested that argument and pointed out that the complaint under Article 5 was outside the six-month time-limit.
46. The Court reiterates that, according to Article 35 of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. It observes that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended on 19 February 2003 when the Moscow City Court sentenced him to imprisonment. After that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention as the lawful detention after conviction by a competent court; (see B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A No. 175, pp. 14 - 16, §§ 36 - 39). The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 21 October 2003, which was more than six months after his pre-trial detention had ended.
47. It follows that this part of the application was lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

III. Other alleged violations of the Convention

48. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court 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 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV.

> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7