ECHR ruling of July 24, 2018 in the case of Farrakhov (Farrakhov) v. Russia (application N 33128/08).
The case was successfully considered the complaint of the applicant that the conditions of his detention in the remand prison, in the temporary detention facility, the conditions of his transport between these two institutions were inhuman and degrading treatment, and also that he had no effective means legal protection against these violations. The case has violated the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, clause 1 of Article 5, clause 4 of Article 5 of the Convention as a result of a conviction in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer.
In 2008, the complainant was assisted in preparing a application. Subsequently, the application was communicated to the Russian Federation.
In his application, the applicant, who lives in the town of Berezniki, Perm Region, referring to Article 3 of the Convention separately and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, complained that the conditions of his detention in the detention center in Kizel and in the temporary detention center of Berezniki, as well as his transportation between these two institutions constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, and also that he did not have at his disposal effective remedies for these violations.
On 24 July 2018, the European Court unanimously declared complaints about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, and about the violation of Article 5 § 1 and 4 of the Convention regarding the legality of the applicant's detention in custody. the period from August 28 to September 21, 2007, as well as the conviction of August 16, 2007 in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, acceptable for consideration on the merits, and the remaining complaints unacceptable for consideration on the merits. The European Court ruled that there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, that there was a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (the right to liberty and security of person ) due to the applicant's detention from August 28 to September 21, 2007, that there was a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention as a result of the conviction of August 16, 2007 in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. The European Court ordered the respondent State to pay the applicant 10,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage.