Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Павленко (Pavlenko) против России» [англ.]

of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic and Social Council by its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977, every prisoner shall have the right to inform at once his family of his imprisonment or his transfer to another institution.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

63. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre and Barnaul remand centre had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, which reads provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Admissibility

1. Submissions by the parties

(a) The Government
64. The Government submitted that the complaint in relation to the temporary detention centre had been submitted out of time. The fact that the applicant raised the matter before the national authorities in 2004 did not affect the calculation of the six-month time-limit but instead indicated that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies before raising the complaint before the Court. Nor had he exhausted domestic remedies in respect of the remand centre. They noted that at the time the applicant had been informed of various domestic remedies.
65. The Government further pleaded that the remedies available to the applicant were effective, which was confirmed by the inquiries carried out following his complaint in 2004 (see paragraphs 52 - 56 above). All complaints from the applicant had been registered and processed in compliance with the applicable legislation. The applicant made no complaint against the remand centre during his stay there. He only raised a complaint in 2004. This complaint was examined and rejected as unfounded. The applicant chose to challenge in the courts the prosecutor's inaction in dealing with his complaint. That challenge was granted and after a fresh inquiry the applicant's complaint was again rejected as unfounded. After the period of detention complained of, the applicant should have brought civil proceedings against the Federal Penitentiary Service and the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation in respect of any eventual health damage and non-pecuniary damage. Had the applicant brought civil proceedings he would have been able to collect the necessary evidence to prove his allegations "beyond reasonable doubt".
(b) The applicant
66. The applicant considered that he had complied with the six-month time-limit. He raised a complaint about the conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre during the trial, which ended with the appeal decision of 22 May 2002, that is, within the six-month period. The applicant argued that the remedies suggested by the Government were ineffective and were not to be exhausted.

2. The Court's assessment

67. Having examined the parties' submissions and the available materials, the Court considers that the applicant's grievances relate to five periods of detention:
- from 3 February to 2 March 2001 in the temporary detention centre;
- from 2 or 3 March to 12 March 2001 in the remand centre;
- from 13 to 23 March 2001 in the temporary detention centre;
- from 24 March 2001 to 6 April 2002 in the remand centre; and
- from 7 to 27 June 2002 in the remand centre.
68. The Court observes at the outset that the first correspondence to the Court, enclosing the application form dated 25 June 2002, was dispatched by the applicant's representative only on 6 November 2002. The applicant made no submissions on that matter and provided no explanation for the delay. The Court will thus take 6 November 2002 as the date of introduction of the pre



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 20 21 22

	Поделиться:	Tweet