Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Христофоров (Khristoforov) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 11336/06)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 29.IV.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 Khristoforov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nina {Vajic} <*>, President
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Andre} Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 11336/06) 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 Vladimir Nikolayevich Khristoforov ("the applicant"), on 23 February 2006.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O. Druzhkova and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged that he had been detained pending investigation and trial in inhuman and degrading conditions.
4. On 22 May 2006 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).
5. The Government objected to a joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1961 and is serving a prison sentence in the Magadan Region.
7. On 3 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and placed in a temporary detention facility at the Severo-Evensk District police station in the Magadan Region (ИВС Северо-Эвенского РУВД). According to the applicant, he was kept in a windowless cell without any other access to fresh air or daylight. It was dim and stuffy. There was no ventilation. The cell was not equipped with a toilet. During the day time, if requested, the guards took the applicant to a bathroom in the hallway. At night, if the applicant wished to go to toilet, he had to use a plastic bucket. There was no outdoor exercise area at the police station, so the applicant had to stay indoors all the time. His daily one-hour walk took place in a room which measured thirty-seven square metres and had two windows covered with metal bars.
8. The supervising prosecutor visited the applicant every week. The applicant complained to him about the conditions of his detention. On 25 March 2005 the applicant asked in writing for a transfer to a remand centre in Magadan. The prosecutor dismissed his request, referring to the distance between Severo-Evensk and Magadan and a lack of funds.
9. The applicant repeated his complaints in written applications to the prosecutor and the courts. All of them were to no avail.
10. On 5



> 1 2 3 ... 4 5 6

	Поделиться:	Tweet