Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Скачков (Skachkov) против России» [англ.]

eedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority..."

A. Submissions by the parties

1. The Government

35. The Government noted that the applicant had failed to bring his grievances to the attention of competent domestic authorities, including the department of corrections, prosecutor or the court and considered that his complaint should be rejected because he had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
36. Relying on the certificates issued by the remand prison administration in July 2009, the Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant's detention had been in compliance with the standards set forth in Article 3 of the Convention and applicable domestic laws. At all times the applicant had been provided with an individual bed and bedding. The cells where he had been detained had a capacity to accommodate twenty-two persons and the average number of inmates detained with the applicant had been eighteen to nineteen. In any event, he had not been confined to the cell for twenty-four hours a day. He had spent a considerable amount of time outside the cell when meeting with his lawyer and family. He had been able to take at least one hour's daily exercise and have showers. It had been open to him to request meetings with the remand prison administration or medical consultations which would have taken place outside his cell.
37. The Government provided excerpts from the remand prison population register for the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005.

2. The applicant

38. The applicant maintained his complaint. He submitted that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions for two years and eleven months and did not have an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. He did not challenge the data contained in the excerpts from the remand prison population registers concerning the number of inmates per cell. However, he asserted that at all times the cells where he had been detained had been severely overcrowded. He noted that, apart from the excerpts from the official records for the periods from 25 August 2004 to 2 January 2005 and from 13 January to 25 February 2005, the Government had failed to substantiate their statements concerning the population of the cells at the remand prison. He further noted that, apart from an hour's daily exercise and brief meetings with his lawyer and relatives, he had been confined to his cell for twenty-four hours a day. In his view, the living conditions in the cells, including the hygiene, had been unsatisfactory. With reference to the Court's case-law (the cases of Benediktov v. Russia, No. 106/02, 10 May 2007, and Lind v. Russia, No. 25664/05, 6 December 2007) the applicant pointed out that the Court had previously examined the issue of the conditions of detention at remand prison No. IZ-77/2 in Moscow and found them in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

39. The Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the complaint that the applicant did not have at his disposal an effective remedy for complaining about inhuman and degrading conditions during his detention. The Court therefore finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
40. The Court further notes that the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.





> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet