5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is serving a prison sentence in the Adygeya Republic, Russia. 6.  It appears that the applicant was arrested on 23 or 24 March 2004. A court found him guilty of disorderly behaviour and sentenced him to administrative detention for fifteen days. According to the applicant, he was not provided with a copy of that order and therefore could not appeal against it. It appears that he served his sentence in the police station in a cell assigned to people convicted in administrative offence proceedings. 7.  On 7 or 9 April 2004 the applicant was remanded in custody in relation to criminal proceedings (see paragraph 49 below). He was placed in Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre (hereinafter “TDC”) attached to Mayskiy police station in the town of Mayskiy in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic. 8.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant was transferred to a remand centre in Nalchik, but was transferred back to the TDC every month for the following periods: 27 to 30 April; 11 to 21 May; 25 to 29 June; 2 to 6 July; 9 to 23 July; 3 to 6 August; 24 to 31 August; 3 to 7 September; 14 to 21 September; and 28 September to 1 October. According to the applicant, he spent a total 112 days in the TDC in 2004. He also spent unspecified periods of time there in 2005. According to him, they amounted to some fifty days in total. 9.  The TDC cells in which he was detained measured no more than 8 sq.m, and were designed to hold up to four detainees; however, at times they housed up to seven. When the cells were overcrowded, the applicant did not have his own individual bed and had to take turns sharing with his cellmates or sleeping on the floor. No bedding was provided. As the cells had no toilet, detainees had to relieve themselves in a large pot, which produced a disgusting smell in the cells. In addition, the cells were usually filled with smoke because the majority of detainees smoked. There was no functioning ventilation in the cells. The cells had no sink or washbasin, and no facilities were provided for maintaining personal hygiene or for washing clothes. The TDC had no shower facilities. On many occasions, the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to have a shower, as often his transfer to the TDC coincided with the remand centre’s bath days. There was no table or seating in the cells, no artificial lighting and limited access to natural light, which meant the applicant was unable to read in his cell and to prepare for hearings. 10.  The applicant spent the majority of his time in the cell, since in the TDC no facilities were available for outdoor exercise. He was fed once a day, but the quality of the food (normally a piece of bread and porridge) was poor and the amount small. The TDC had no canteen or catering facilities. No provision was made for the supply of drinking water to detainees. 11.  In April 2005 the applicant was held in a cell with a detainee who allegedly suffered from acute tuberculosis. 12.  From 24 March 2004 to an unspecified date the applicant was held in Mayskiy police station, in a cell assigned to people convicted of administrative offences. 13.  From 7 to 16 April 2004 he was detained in Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre in relation to criminal proceedings and for various other periods in 2004 and 2005. The Government provided the Court with copies of registers containing a daily record of the number of detainees held in each of four cells (measuring between 5.5 and 7 sq.m each) over 161 days. 14.  As can be seen from the registers, from 7 to 16 April 2004 the applicant shared a cell with two and then three detainees. Subsequently, he was detained with up to three other detainees. However, on 14 May and 16 November 2004 there were six detainees in the cell. On twenty other days in 2004 there were five in the cell. 15.  The Government affirmed that the applicant would have been taken to the toilet upon request. While there had been no shower facilities, the TDC had contracted out disinfection and laundry to a private company. Each cell had been equipped with a sink, and drinking and boiled water had been provided upon request. Detainees had been provided with bedding and cutlery. They had been given three meals a day, and had been able to take daily one-hour outdoor walks, as confirmed by the relevant logbooks. 16.  The Government submitted blurred photocopies of photographs taken on an unspecified date, which appear to show the interior of the TDC cells. They also submitted a copy of a contract between the TDC and a private company signed in 2004, relating to the provision of meals to detainees once a day. 17.  As indicated in a report dated 27 November 2008 by the Chief Officer of Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre, as of November 2008 there was one toilet for detainees in the facility, but none in the cells. There was an electric stove for warming up food and water. There was no medical unit, but two first aid kits. Natural ventilation in the cells complied with the relevant regulations, and each cell had artificial lighting. 18.  The Government submitted written statements made in November 2008 by several officers who had served in the TDC in 2004 and 2005. They stated that they had taken detainees to the toilet and had provided them with water upon request. They had been given bedding, and had been taken for an hour’s outdoor exercise on a daily basis. 19.  Lastly, the Government also submitted written statements made by several detainees in relation to the conditions of their detention in the TDC in 2008. 20.  The applicant lodged numerous complaints regarding, inter alia, the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention in the TDC and sued various public authorities. 21.  In March 2005 the applicant complained to the Mayskiy district prosecutor about the conditions of his detention in the TDC. In a letter of 5 April 2005 the prosecutor acknowledged that detainees had not been provided with bedding or drinking water in the cells, and that the detention centre had not been equipped with adequate catering facilities. The prosecutor stated that his office had ordered the TDC to carry out renovation works, which were imminent. As can be seen from the detention facility’s stamp, the prosecutor’s letter was received by the detention facility on 28 April 2006. 22.  On 6 May 2005 the same prosecutor rejected a further complaint by the applicant about the conditions of his detention in the TDC during April 2005. 23.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Nalchik Town Court, citing the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and expressing his dissatisfaction with the prosecutor’s decision of 6 May 2005. By a letter of 27 December 2005, the President of the Town Court declined jurisdiction without any further explanation. The letter was received by the detention centre on 12 January 2006. The applicant did not institute any further proceedings in relation to this letter. 24.  In August 2006 the applicant sought judicial review under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) in respect of the decision of 6 May 2005. By a judgment of 15 September 2006 the Mayskiy District Court refused to deal with the complaint. On 12 December 2006 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered an examination of the case, because the applicant had not been taken to the first-instance hearing and the District Court had not actually examined the contents of the decision of 6 May 2005. On 25 June 2007 the District Court held that the procedure under Article 125 of the CCrP was inappropriate. On 11 September 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case. The applicant did not inform the Court of the outcome of those proceedings. 25.  In the meantime, in November 2005 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, seeking a judicial declaration that its failure to provide adequate conditions of detention had been unlawful. It appears that in November or December 2005, the President of the Town Court declined jurisdiction without any further explanation. The applicant was informed accordingly soon thereafter. He did not institute any further proceedings. 26.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant brought proceedings before the Butyrskiy and Tverskoy District Courts of Moscow against the Federal Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of the conditions of his detention in the TDC. On 28 February 2006 the Butyrskiy District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Tverskoy District Court. On 3 April 2006 the Tverskoy District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Mayskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic. The decisions were received by the detention centre on 13 March and 28 April 2006 respectively. The applicant did not challenge them on appeal. 27.  Meanwhile, on 30 January 2006 the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Nalchik Town Court against the Federal Ministry of Finance. He claimed compensation in the amount of 200,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage on account of, inter alia, the unacceptable conditions of his detention in the TDC. 28.  Together with his statement of claim, he enclosed an application for a court fee waiver. He stated that he was serving a prison term and therefore had no income. He also affirmed that his case related to criminal proceedings against him and thus he was entitled to a fee waiver under Article 89 of the CCP and Article 333.36 of the Tax Code. 29.  Referring to the fact that he was a detainee, the applicant alleged that he could not at that stage submit evidence in support of his claim. He made a written application under Article 57 of the CCP, requesting the court to assist him in collecting evidence. He requested the court to require production of the following: official documents from his detainee file kept in the remand centre relating to his transfer in and out of Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre (for establishing the period of his detention in this facility), and an official statement from the TDC specifying the periods of his detention there, his cell numbers, the number of inmates held in each cell, and the names of the detainees he shared with (for establishing that the relevant regulations regarding cell space, the provision of individual beds, and other material conditions of detention had not been complied with). 30.  Lastly, the applicant requested the court to order a procedural measure requesting a local judge in Mayskiy to inspect the premises of the TDC. 31.  By a decision of 2 February 2006, judge G. in the Town Court refused to process the claim. He held as follows:
“The statement of claim does not comply with the requirements of Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The claimant has not enclosed any documentary evidence confirming the circumstances he refers to in the statement. He has not submitted evidence relating to non-pecuniary damage or adverse consequences resulting from moral suffering. He has not paid a court fee.
The court dismisses the request for a fee waiver because Articles 89 of the CCP or Article 333.36 of the Tax Code do not contain any relevant grounds. In addition, the case file does not contain any evidence or grounds prescribed by law which would permit the court to order such a waiver.
Article 56 of the CCP requires a party to the proceedings to adduce evidence confirming the circumstances this party refers to, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
Article 57 of the CCP provides that the parties to the proceedings and other interested persons are to submit evidence. The court may invite them to submit further evidence. If a party has difficulties in submitting certain evidence, the court may provide assistance in collecting evidence, including by requiring its production.
However, the case file does not contain any proof that the claimant is unable to collect and adduce the evidence mentioned in his claim.”
The judge ordered the applicant to pay a fee and to adduce evidence before 14 February 2006. According to the detention facility’s stamp, the applicant received that decision on 13 February 2006. On 15 February 2006 judge G. discontinued the proceedings because the applicant had not complied with his directions. A copy of the discontinuation decision was received by the detention centre on 28 February 2006. 32.  In the meantime, on 15 February 2006 (before becoming aware that the case had been discontinued) the applicant requested an extension of the time-limit for appealing against the decision of 2 February 2006 and lodged a statement of appeal. On 20 February 2006 judge G. refused to deal with the applicant’s request for an extension of the time-limit because he had not “carried out the procedural measure in respect of which an extension had been sought” and had not provided a list of “all interested persons and their whereabouts”. The applicant was requested to remedy these shortcomings before 27 February 2006. On 28 February 2006 judge G. discontinued the proceedings, on account of the applicant’s failure to comply with the court’s directions. According to the detention facility’s stamp, the order of 20 February 2006 was not received by the detention facility until 6 March 2006. The applicant did not pursue the proceedings any further (however, see paragraph 35 below). 33.  The applicant also appealed against the decision of 15 February 2006 by which judge G. had discontinued the proceedings on his claim. On 4 April 2006 judge G. extended the time-limit for appeal, noting that the applicant had not received the decision until 28 February 2006. Without holding a hearing, on 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 15 February 2006. It stated that the applicant had not proven that he had received the decision of 2 February 2006 on 13 February 2006 and thus judge G. had rightly discontinued the case. 34.  The applicant received a copy of the appeal judgment on 11 May 2006. 35.  Before proceedings in the above case ended, the applicant initiated new civil proceedings with the same claim. On 23 March 2006 judge S. in the Town Court issued a decision not to deal with the claim and advised the applicant to bring proceedings before a district court in Moscow. As can be seen from the detention centre’s stamp, a copy of the judge’s decision was received by the detention centre on 29 March 2006. On an unspecified date, the detention facility dispatched an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 23 March 2006. 36.  On 21 April 2006 the Town Court refused to process the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 March 2006 as being lodged out of time. The court considered that the copy of the decision had been received by the detention centre on 27 March 2006, whereas the applicant’s appeal had not reached the Town Court until 14 April 2006. 37.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant received a copy of the decision of 21 April 2006 and lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. By a letter of 28 April 2006, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that he should have lodged his appeal with the registry of the Town Court. The applicant did not pursue the proceedings and brought new proceedings instead (see below). 38.  On 1 May 2006 the applicant brought new civil proceedings against the Regional Treasury Department and the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, claiming RUB 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 5 May 2006 judge G. in the Town Court refused to process the case on account of the applicant’s failure to adduce evidence. It also refused to assist the applicant with collecting evidence, because there was no proof that he had encountered any difficulties in doing so. The applicant was ordered to provide a list of all interested persons and to adduce evidence before 16 May 2006. The order of 5 May 2006 read as follows:
“The statement of claim does not comply with the requirements of Articles 131 and 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). [The applicant] has not enclosed any documentary evidence confirming the circumstances he refers to in the statement. He has not submitted evidence relating to non-pecuniary damage or adverse consequences resulting from moral suffering. He has not paid a court fee.
The court dismisses the request for a fee deferral because Articles 89 of the CCP or Article 333.36 of the Tax Code do not contain any relevant grounds. In addition, the case file does not contain any evidence or grounds prescribed by law which would permit the court to order a fee waiver.
Article 56 of the CCP requires a party to the proceedings to provide evidence confirming the circumstances this party refers to, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
Article 57 of the CCP provides that the parties to the proceedings and other interested persons are to submit evidence. The court may invite them to submit further evidence. If a party has difficulties in submitting certain evidence, the court may provide assistance in collecting evidence, including by requiring its production.
However, the case file does not contain any proof that the claimant is unable to collect and adduce the evidence mentioned in his claim.
In addition, the statement of claim does not list all interested persons. [The applicant] has not supplied enough copies of the statement for every party to the proceedings.”
The order was received by the remand centre on 15 May 2006. 39.  Instead of complying with the judge’s directions, on the same or next day the applicant drafted a statement of appeal against the decision of 5 May 2006. On 22 May 2006 judge G. refused to process the appeal, on the grounds that it had not been dispatched from the remand centre until 17 May 2006. The applicant had therefore missed the ten-day statutory time-limit for appeal. The applicant received a copy of the judge’s decision of 22 May 2006 on 1 June 2006. 40.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant requested an extension of the time-limit for challenging the decision of 22 May 2006, and lodged a statement of appeal. On 30 June 2006 judge G. extended the time-limit, considering that the applicant had not received the decision of 22 May 2006 until 1 June 2006. On 26 July 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 22 May 2006. 41.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, seeking a judicial declaration that his conditions of detention “had been unlawful and violated his rights and freedoms”. On 2 June 2006 the Town Court ordered the applicant to supply enough copies of his statement of claim for every party to the proceedings and to pay a court fee before 9 June 2006. A copy of that decision was received by the detention facility on 15 June 2006. The applicant did not challenge it on appeal. In the meantime, on 13 June 2006 the Town Court discontinued the case. 42.  In June 2006 the applicant brought proceedings in the Town Court against the Regional Treasury Department and the Ministry of the Interior of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in relation to the criminal proceedings against him, a deferral of payment of the court fee, and an order for the material contained in his criminal case file to be examined. 43.  On 22 June 2006 the Town Court considered that the applicant had complied with the requirements of Articles 131 and 132 of the CCP and requested production of the criminal case file against him. 44.  On 17 July 2006 the proceedings were suspended because the criminal case file had been submitted to the Supreme Court of Russia for examination. On 12 December 2007 the Town Court resumed the civil proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 20 December 2007. The court issued a summons to the applicant’s known home address, taking note of the fact that he had been released in September 2007. On 27 December 2007 the court considered that the summons had been delivered. Since the applicant had not attended two hearings, and had not asked that the case be examined in his absence, the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against the decision of 27 December 2007. 45.  In the meantime, the applicant sued the judges of the Town Court on account of their failure to examine the claims he had lodged in June 2006, claiming RUB 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By an order of 15 September 2006, the Town Court refused to process the applicant’s case on account of his failure to indicate the nature of the alleged violation and to pay the applicable fee. The applicant was ordered to comply with the court’s directions by 25 September 2006. A copy of that order was received by the detention facility on 20 September 2006. According to the applicant, it was not given to him until on 28 September 2006. On 29 January 2007 the Town Court refused to extend the time-limit for appealing against the order of 15 September 2006, because the applicant had failed to prove the date he received it. 46.  In August 2006 the applicant also sued Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre, claiming RUB 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 24 August 2006 the Town Court refused to process the claim, because the applicant had not paid the applicable court fee of RUB 100, and had given no reasons to justify deferring its payment. The judge stated that the applicant’s reference to the fact that he was a detainee was insufficient. The Regulations for detention centres provided that each individual detainee was to be given their own account. The applicant could provide information from that account to prove that he was experiencing financial difficulties. 47.  The judge also held that the applicant had not explained what “IVS” stood for (a Russian abbreviation for temporary detention centre) and whether it was an autonomous legal entity. The applicant was ordered to comply with the court’s directions by 4 September 2006. 48.  The applicant received a copy of that order on 30 August 2006. On 11 September 2006 he requested an extension of the time-limit for appeal. A hearing on the matter was scheduled, but adjourned on several occasions. On 15 October 2007 the Town Court held a hearing. The applicant made a written statement withdrawing his appeal against the decision of 24 August 2006. 49.  In April 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery. On 9 April 2004 the Mayskiy District Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic authorised his detention pending an investigation. On 30 September 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. On 11 March 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. It appears that the applicant was represented by a legal aid lawyer in the above proceedings. 50.  The applicant was also prosecuted in separate proceedings in relation to other charges. Those proceedings were discontinued on 31 August 2005. 51.  The applicant applied for early release and the substitution of his prison sentence by a less severe punishment. On 31 May and 28 June 2006 judge K. in the Nalchik Town Court dismissed his requests. On 22 August 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgments. 52.  In 2006 the applicant, relying on various grounds, also unsuccessfully sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the authorities and judges on account of their refusal to examine or process his complaints. 53.  On 22 February 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal decision of 11 March 2005 and ordered a fresh appeal hearing. On 24 July 2007 the Supreme Court re-examined the criminal case against the applicant on appeal and reduced his sentence. 54.  On 20 July 2005 the Court received an undated letter from the applicant bearing a postmark of 3 July 2005 from remand centre no. 7/1 in the town of Nalchik. In the letter the applicant cited Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention and complained that his detention had been unlawful, that he had suffered “inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre”, and the negative effects that such conditions had had on his ability to prepare his defence for the trial. 55.  By a letter of 25 July 2005 the Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter, requesting that he complete and return the requisite application form. The letter read as follows:
“You should return to the Court the application form and all necessary additional documents without undue delay, within six weeks following receipt of the present letter. Otherwise, the Court may decide not to take the date of your first letter as the date of introduction of the application, which may adversely affect the Court’s decision as to compliance with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.” 56.  According to the applicant, he received the above Court’s letter in the remand centre on 4 August 2005. On 19 August 2005 he filled in the application form and submitted it to the staff of the detention facility for dispatch. On 8 September 2005 the administration of the facility informed him that his application form and supporting documents had been dispatched to the Court; however, they were not received by the Court. 57.  The applicant submitted a letter dated 28 November 2005 to the staff of the remand centre for dispatch. On 2 December 2005 this letter was returned to him without any explanation. The applicant later dispatched it from prison no. 3. The Court replied to the applicant on 19 January 2006, reminding him of the requirement to submit an application form without undue delay and that such a delay could have an adverse impact on the application of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 58.  According to the applicant, he completed a further application form and on 3 February 2006 submitted it to the prison staff for dispatch. He also submitted for dispatch letters dated 20 March and 29 May 2006. The application form and letters were not received by the Court. 59.  The Court did however receive a letter from the applicant dated 7 August 2006 (sent through a third party) to which it replied, again requesting him to fill in a further application form. The applicant complied with that request on 9 November 2006 and his application form was received by the Court soon thereafter. 60.  In March 2007 the regional prosecutor’s office carried out an inquiry into the applicant’s complaint regarding the alleged non-dispatch of his correspondence to the Court, but it was dismissed on the basis that the applicant’s letter of 29 May 2006 had been dispatched on 2 June 2006 and that in February and March 2006 he had only written to the domestic authorities. 61.  The Government submitted that from April 2004 to September 2006 the applicant had been detained in remand centre no. 7/1 in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic. As can be seen from the correspondence logbooks, he submitted three letters to the Court for dispatch, namely on 1 July 2005 (log no. 82), 8 September 2005 (log no. 108) and 2 June 2006 (log no. 51). The first letter was undated and dispatched on 3 July 2005. As to the second letter, on 8 September 2005 the applicant’s sealed envelope was submitted to the relevant unit of the detention facility and was dispatched on the same day by ordinary mail through the State postal service in the town of Nalchik. Following a complaint by the applicant, an inquiry was carried out, but in contrast to the applicant’s version of events, did not confirm that on 1 or 2 December 2005 the staff of the detention facility had returned to him the correspondence he had allegedly submitted for dispatch on 28 November 2005. 62.  The Government also contended that on 13 February and 20 March 2006 the applicant had indeed submitted correspondence for dispatch; however, it had been addressed to the domestic authorities rather than to the Court. In a report dated 5 December 2008 the Chief Officer of remand centre no. 7/1 stated that the applicant’s correspondence had been dispatched by ordinary mail, in compliance with the relevant Instruction (see paragraph 74 below).