4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Tomsk. 5.  By judgment of 13 November 2008, the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment in a high-security correctional facility. 6.  From 18 November 2005 to 26 December 2006, from 4 December 2007 to 16 February 2009 and from 16 June to 7 July 2010 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-70/1 of Tomsk. 7.  In the latter period, the applicant was brought to the Tomsk prison in connection with a hearing on his application for supervisory review of his conviction. He was placed in cell 218, known as a “transit cell”. It measured 14 square metres and was equipped with 4 three-tier beds. The cell population varied from 9 to 12 inmates. There was one small window which was additionally covered with two layers of bars. The inmates were allowed one hour of outdoor exercise in the courtyards that measured from 18 to 25 square metres and were surrounded with three-metre-high walls. 8.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant complained about inadequate conditions of detention to the Tomsk regional prosecutor. By letter of 27 August 2010, the acting prosecutor acknowledged that the prison was overcrowded. 9.  On 16 March 2011 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for non-pecuniary damage he had incurred on account of the inadequate conditions of detention. He also sought leave to appear before the court. 10.  By letter of 2 June 2011, a judge of the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk asked the director of remand prison IZ-70/2 to deliver a summons to the applicant and –
“... to explain to him that neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor other federal acts allow the individuals who are serving a court-imposed sentence in correctional facilities, to appear in person before courts that hear their civil claims (whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, third parties or other parties). The Penitentiary Code provides for transporting detainees from correctional facilities to remand prisons only if it is necessary to ensure their participation in criminal proceedings (Article 77.1).
It follows that the courts have no obligation to bring these individuals to the places where their civil claims are being heard with a view to ensuring their participation in such hearings.” 11.  On 23 June 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court heard the applicant’s civil claim, with the participation of a representative of the Ministry of Finance and a representative of the remand prison. It noted that the applicant had been duly notified of the time and place of the hearing but had not appointed a representative. The District Court examined documents from the remand prison, heard testimony by a prison official and found that the allegation of overcrowding had been proven but that all other allegations by the applicant, including those relating a shortage of sleeping place and bed linen, poor ventilation and tiny exercise yards, were unfounded. It awarded the applicant 15,000 Russian roubles (RUR). 12.  On 6 September 2011 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the judgment on procedural grounds, nothing that the District Court had proceeded to hearing the case without ascertaining that the applicant had indeed received the summons. It directed that the District Court should hold a new examination of the claim. 13.  By letter of 16 September 2011 addressed to the director of the remand prison, the District Court judge informed the applicant that the hearing would take place on 14 October 2011 and that his request for leave to appear was rejected because the relevant laws did not make provision for participation of detainees in civil proceedings. 14.  On 5 October 2011 the applicant submitted an addendum to his statement of claim. He contested the submissions that the representative of the remand prison made at the previous hearing, and asked the court to order the remand prison to produce further documentary evidence and to hear his former co-detainees K. and P. 15.  At the hearings on 14 and 28 October 2011 the District Court heard the representatives of the Ministry of Finance and the remand prison and the witness K., as suggested by the applicant. It found in particular that cell 218 measured 13.9 square metres and accommodated up to 12 detainees. By judgment of 28 October 2011, the District Court again awarded the applicant RUR 15,000, supplying the following justification of the amount:
“The court takes into account the factual circumstances, in which the non-pecuniary damage was caused, the personality and individual characteristics of the plaintiff (multiple convictions) and also notes that no evidence of physical suffering on account of [the overcrowding] has been produced before the court.” 16.  In his statement of claim, the applicant complained about the rejection of his request for leave to appear, about misrepresentation of the testimony by the witness K. and the small amount of the award. 17.  On 10 January 2012 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the judgment but increased the award to RUR 30,000, having regard to the “circumstances of the case in their entirety, the duration of the violation and its nature, [and] the degree of the plaintiff’s physical and moral suffering”. The Regional Court held that there was no violation of the applicant’s procedural right on account of his absence since he had been duly notified of the date and place of the hearing but had not appointed a representative. 18.  On 28 July 2010 the applicant submitted a completed application form, in which he alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against him. The application was given number 54029/10. 19.  On 2 November 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the Court, stating his wish to complain, among other matters, about the conditions of his detention in cell 218 of prison IZ-70/1 in the period from 16 June to 7 July 2010. He enclosed a copy of the prosecutor’s letter of 27 August 2010. 20.  On 27 January 2011 the applicant submitted an addendum to his application which contained in particular a detailed description of the conditions of his detention in cell 218. 21.  On 16 April 2012 the applicant introduced a new addendum to his application. He alleged that the conditions of his detention in prison IZ-70/1, starting from 18 November 2005 and until 16 February 2009, had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 22.  By letter of 29 June 2012, the Court informed the applicant that his complaints concerning the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention in the Tomsk prison had been severed from the rest of his application and given number 40044/12. The applicant was requested to fill out an application form and to return it no later than 24 August 2012. 23.  On 10 August 2012 the applicant submitted the completed application form.