5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yekaterinburg. 6.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant, an investigator with the prosecutor’s office, was charged with abuse of power. In particular, he was accused of having forged a court decision ordering the release of a rape suspect, and subsequent concealment and theft of the relevant criminal case-file. On an unspecified date the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave town. 7.  From 27 January to 5 February 2004 the applicant, who had earlier been diagnosed with bladder cancer, was placed in hospital. 8.  On 9 February 2004 the Verkh-Yesetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The court considered that the applicant’s failure to notify the investigator of his admission to hospital was in contravention of his undertaking not to leave town. The applicant was arrested on the same day. 9.  On 5 March 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 9 February 2004 on appeal. The appeal court considered that the court’s findings and its decision to remand the applicant in custody had been “premature”. The applicant was released on 10 March 2004. 10.  On 11 March 2004 the applicant was admitted to hospital, where he underwent surgery. He was discharged from hospital on 24 March 2004. 11.  On 14 March 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year’s detention in a correctional settlement. The applicant was remanded in custody on the same day. 12.  On 29 June 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant and his lawyer participated in the hearing by means of a video teleconference. 13.  From 9 February to 10 March 2004 and from 15 March to 3 August 2005 the applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg.
(a)  Period from 9 February to 10 March 2004 14.  According to the applicant, from 9 February to 10 March 2004 he was detained in cell no. 602, which was severely overcrowded. The cell was infested with bed bugs and other insects. The food was of very poor quality. He did not have access to any medical assistance.
(b)  Period from 15 March to 3 August 2005
(i)  The description provided by the Government 15.  According to the Government, on 15 March 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 311, which measured 30 sq. m and was equipped with twelve sleeping places. According to the remand prison population register submitted by the Government, the number of inmates held in the cell during the period in question varied from 13 to 27, with three exceptions when the cell held twelve inmates on 1 April, 11 June and 2 August 2005. 16.  The cell was equipped with natural and artificial ventilation which was in good working order. The cell had two windows covered with metal bars which did not prevent access of daylight. The artificial lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night low-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting in the cell. The toilet was located in the corner of the cell near the entrance door and was separated from the living area of the cell by a brick wall which was one metre high and ensured the privacy of the person using it. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was 3 m. The closest sleeping place was located 2.5 m away from the toilet. The applicant was at all times provided with an individual sleeping place, bed sheets and cutlery. The applicant was allowed one hour’s exercise per day. The cell was disinfected once a month. 17.  During the period in question, the applicant met with his family and relatives six times.
(ii)  The description provided by the applicant 18.  According to the applicant, at all times the number of sleeping places in the cell was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. Bed sheets, towels and cutlery were supplied by the applicant’s family. The light was constantly on. The cell was infested with bed bugs and lice. The ceiling leaked. There was no ventilation in the cell. All the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to tobacco smoke. He was allegedly denied medical assistance. 19.  According to the Government, on 4 August 2005 the applicant arrived at correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil and was placed in a disciplinary cell measuring 8 sq. m, where he was held until 15 August 2005, together with two other inmates. There were four sleeping places in the cell. The hygiene conditions in the cell were in compliance with applicable standards. The cell was equipped with natural and artificial ventilation in good working order. The cell was well lit. The window ensured sufficient access of daylight. The toilet was separated from the rest of the cell by a wall which was 1.1 m high and ensured the privacy of the person using it. The applicant was allowed two hours’ of exercise per day. 20.  On 15 August 2005 the applicant was moved from the disciplinary cell to dormitory no. 3 in section no. 19. The dormitory measured 23.1 square meters and had six sleeping places. The number of inmates assigned to the dormitory was six at all times. The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place, bed sheets and cutlery. The dormitory had two bathrooms. The first one had three sinks and two toilets and the second one had four sinks and three toilets. There was also a separate shower room. Section no. 19 of the correctional settlement had a surface area of 2,498 square metres and was equipped with basketball and volleyball grounds, and an area specially designed for weightlifting and training on pull-up bars. It was open to the applicant to move freely within the settlement.
(b)  The description provided by the applicant 21.  According to the applicant, the disciplinary cell where he was detained from 4 to 15 August 2005 had no access to natural light. The window was covered with metal bars and shutters. The food was of very poor quality. The applicant was allowed only brief daily walks and had to remain standing for the rest of the day. The beds were pulled up and fastened against the wall during the day time. The cell was infested with mice. The ceiling leaked. The toilet was located 0.1 metres away from the nearest bed. 22.  There were seven inmates assigned to dormitory no. 3 while there were only six sleeping places. The applicant conceded that he had an individual sleeping place and bed sheets. 23.  The proper temperature was not maintained in the cells and dormitories of the settlement. It was very cold in the winter and too hot in the summer inside the premises. They were infested with mice. The floors were rotten. The ceiling was covered with mould and fungus. 24.  On 17 February 2006 the applicant was released, having served his sentence. 25.  On 23 June 2006 the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg considered the applicant’s claims against correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil in part. As regards the applicant’s allegations concerning a lack of medical assistance in the ensuing period, the court dismissed them as unsubstantiated. It noted that the applicant had been able to consult medical professionals from both the medical unit of the penal establishment and the municipal outpatient clinic and hospital where he had undergone an examination and surgery in December 2005. As to the applicant’s detention in a disciplinary cell from 4 to 15 August 2005, the court noted as follows:
“The [applicant’s] argument that his right to be detained in normal conditions ... was infringed by the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil has been confirmed. According to the letters of the Nizhniy Tagil Prosecutor’s Office ... of 19 December 2005 and 25 October 2005, it was established in the course of the inquiries that, on 4 August 2005, upon arrival [to the correctional settlement] [the applicant] was placed in the quarantine section ... in contravention of Article 79 § 2 of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences. On the basis of the inquiries’ findings, the Nizhniy Tagil Prosecutor’s Office sent a citation to the head of the [regional department of corrections]. The inquiry has established that the quarantine section, where the applicant was held, was located in the disciplinary cell, where the conditions of detention were close to those maintained in prisons, that is the conditions of detention in the quarantine section were similar to the one appropriate for a disciplinary cell.
...
The [applicant’s] argument that the personal space afforded to him while he was detained in the quarantine section was [below the statutory standards] has been confirmed. According to Article 99 § 1 of 2 of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences, the personal space afforded to one person serving a criminal sentence should not be less than 2 square metres. According to the findings of the Nizhniy Tagil Prosecutor’s Office ... of 14 April 2006 ..., the quarantine section where [the applicant] was detained measured overall 8 square metres. There were from 2 to 3 other persons detained together with [the applicant]. This fact was not disputed by the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil. It follows that the personal space afforded to the detainees was below 2 square metres in contravention of Article 99 of the Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences ... .
...
Having regard to the above ..., the Court has decided
To consider unlawful the following actions of the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil: 3.  The failure to ensure that the personal space afforded to [the applicant] during his detention in the quarantine section was in compliance with the statutory requirements.” 26.  On 15 August 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 June 2006 on appeal. 2.  Action for damages in connection with the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 and correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil 27.  In July or August 2006 the applicant brought a claim for damages in connection with (a) his allegedly unlawful detention and the alleged lack of medical assistance in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 from 9 February to 10 March 2004, and (b) his unlawful detention in correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil from 4 to 15 August 2005, and the alleged lack of medical assistance in the ensuing period. 28.  On 25 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg dismissed the applicant’s claim. In particular, the court found that the applicant’s detention from 9 February to 10 March 2004 in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 had not been unlawful, even though the relevant court order had subsequently been quashed on appeal. The court also dismissed the applicant’s allegations about lack of medical assistance in correctional settlement no. IK-13 as unsubstantiated. As regards the applicant’s claim for damages in connection with the unlawful actions of the administration of correctional settlement no. IK-13 in Nizhniy Tagil, the court noted as follows:
“Even though, according to the judgment of the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg [of 23 June 2006], the actions of the administration of the correctional settlement were found to be unlawful, [the court] discerns nothing for it to award non‑pecuniary damages to [the applicant]. The factors to be taken into consideration for such an award are the existence of physical and mental suffering, the unlawfulness of the action (failure to act), and the link between the action and resulting damage, the wilful behaviour on the part of the wrongdoer.
Having regard to the material [before the court], it does not discern that [the applicant] had sustained any physical or mental suffering resulting from the violation of his rights as established in the judgment of the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg.” 29.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an application for expungement of his criminal record. He referred to his positive character references, his employment and his family. 30.  On 18 October 2006 the Chkalovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg refused to grant the applicant’s petition. 31.  On 6 December 2006 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 18 October 2006 on appeal.