ble
80. The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
81. The Court reiterates that the applicant was detained at the Neman town detention unit twelve times over a period of fifteen months between 16 August 2001 and 12 November 2002; the aggregate period of his detention amounted to three months and thirteen days (see paragraph 19 above).
82. The Court further observes that in the proceedings seeking compensation for damage, the domestic courts found that the applicant's "right to be detained in the temporary detention unit in accordance with the established rules and regulations [had been] breached" and that he had sustained "physical and mental suffering" as result of his detention in the Neman town detention unit. In particular, they found that he had been held in poor sanitary conditions in insufficiently lit, damp, stuffy and overcrowded cells to which he was confined for 24 hours a day, usually with four to seven other individuals, that he had had limited access to a toilet and no access to bathing or any other facilities in order to maintain even basic hygiene, that he had been given food only once a day and that he had not had an individual sleeping place (see paragraph 26 above). The Government did not dispute the findings of the domestic courts.
83. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 (see, for similar reasoning, Kantyrev, cited above, §§ 52 - 53, and Guliyev v. Russia, No. 24650/02, § 43, 19 June 2008).
84. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant's detention in the Neman town detention unit, which the Court considers to be inhuman and degrading within the meaning of this provision.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in
facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad
85. The applicant complained that his detention from 24 August 2001 to 17 April 2003 in detention facility No. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad, in appalling conditions, had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 is cited above.
A. Submissions by the parties
86. The Government, citing the information provided by the director of facility No. IZ-39/1, submitted that the applicant had at all times been provided with an individual sleeping place as the number of detainees in the cell had corresponded to the number of bunks. They further contended that the remaining aspects of the applicant's conditions of detention (bedding, compliance with sanitary norms, lighting, etc.) had been satisfactory.
87. The applicant insisted that his detention in overcrowded cells had been unbearable. It was further exacerbated by unsatisfactory sanitary conditions, inability to take a shower regularly, insufficient lighting, etc. He stressed that he had raised the issue of the appalling conditions of detention before various domestic authorities. The complaints had been to no avail.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
88. The Court notes that the applicant's complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
89. The Court notes that the parties have disputed certain aspects of the conditions of the ap
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 23 24 25
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
