objection should be dismissed. Moreover, the Court does not consider that an action for damages had any prospect of success, in particular as regards the applicant's detention in June 2002, which did not relate to the problem of prison overpopulation but rather concerned the other material conditions, in particular the allegedly insufficient access of natural air and light to the cell in view of the use of shutters on the cell window. It is noted that the presence of such shutters was considered at the time to be lawful (see, in a similar context, Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 76 - 81 and §§ 86 - 89). In view of the above, the applicant should be considered as having complied with the exhaustion requirement.
79. The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the applicant's complaint concerning the conditions of his detention from 7 to 27 June 2002 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
B. Merits
80. The Court observes that the parties agree in substance that (i) in June 2002 the applicant was kept for some twenty days alone in a cell measuring slightly over 4 square metres; and (ii) the cell window measuring 0.36 square metres was covered with metal shutters (see paragraphs 46 - 49 above). The remaining circumstances are in dispute between the parties.
81. The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, No. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, No. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI). It is noted, however, that instead of the size of the relevant cell, the focus of the applicant's grievance in the admissible part is on the limited access of natural light and air to the cell. The Court accepts that the applicant could have sustained certain inconveniencies on account of the small size of the window and the presence of shutters on it. At the same time, the Court was unable to determine whether the apparent lack of natural light affected him in any significant way. Nor is there any evidence that the internal light or ventilation system were deficient. In addition, it is noted that the applicant could participate in the daily outdoor exercise sessions alongside other detainees and communicate with the outside world, including his counsel or family, during that period. Lastly, the Court does not consider on the basis of the available material that the other material conditions referred to by the applicant were such as to amount to a form of degrading or inhuman treatment.
82. Thus, on the basis of the materials before it, the Court considers that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention from 7 to 27 June 2002.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention
83. The applicant also complained that he had no effective remedies for his above grievances about the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre and Barnaul remand centre. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
84. The parties' submissions ar
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
