Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.10.2009 «Дело Бордиков (Bordikov) против России» [англ.]

t in hospital. He was released once his condition was recognised as satisfactory.
46. On 15 November 2002 the applicant complained of hypertension. He was examined by a doctor, who administered an injection and prescribed medication.
47. On 3, 7, 8 and 10 March 2003 the doctor examined the applicant and treated his hypertension.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

48. The applicant complained that the conditions in the remand prison where he had been detained from 2001 to 2003 had been inhuman and degrading and that he had not received adequate medical treatment there. He referred to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Conditions of the applicant's detention

1. The Government's preliminary objection as
to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies

49. In their submissions following the Court's decision as to the admissibility of the application, the Government noted that the applicant had not brought a civil action for damages. Alternatively he could have lodged a relevant complaint with a prosecutor's office.
50. The Court notes that the Government raised the objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant in their written observations on the admissibility of the application. The Court considered the Government's plea concerning the possibility to bring a civil action for damages in respect of the alleged violation and dismissed it in its decision on admissibility (see Bordikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 921/03, 18 October 2007). There is no reason for the Court to consider the Government's plea of inadmissibility for a second time.
51. As regards the Government's contention that the applicant could have complained to a prosecutor, which was brought to the attention of the Court after it had adopted the admissibility decision on the matter, the Court reiterates that, under Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], No. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], No. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X). However, in their observations on the admissibility of the application the Government did not raise this point. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any exceptional circumstances that could have dispensed the Government from the obligation to raise it before the adoption of the Chamber's admissibility decision of 18 October 2007 (see Prokopovich v. Russia, No. 58255/00, § 29, 18 November 2004).
52. Consequently, the Government are estopped at this stage of the proceedings from raising the preliminary objection concerning the applicant's alleged failure to lodge a complaint with the prosecutor's office. It follows that the Government's preliminary objection in that part must be dismissed.

2. Submissions by the parties on the merits of the complaint

53. The Government did not dispute the applicant's allegation that the cells where he had been detained were overcrowded. However, they reasoned that this fact alone could not be sufficient for the Court to find a violation of the applicant's right set forth in Article 3. They disputed the description of the remand prison provided by the applicant, claiming that the hygiene conditions at the remand prison were satisfactory.
54. The applicant maintained his complaint, arguing that the information and documents submitted by the Government were inaccurate. In support of his position, he submitted a statement by Mr Sh., who had been detained with him in cell No.



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet