THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46293/17
Viktor Alekseyevich LASDORF
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 June 2025 as a Committee composed of:
 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr K. Zakarigayev, a lawyer practising in Stavropol.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention after conviction were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of his post-conviction detention in violation of the national requirements during periods which had already come to an end (for further details see the appended table).
The Government submitted additional information about the new Compensation Act and asked to treat it as a new remedy in respect of conditions of detention complaints under Articles 3 of the Convention.
While examining similar complaints lodged against the Russian Federation, the Court has consistently held that applicants are required to make use of the newly introduced compensatory remedy in respect of improper conditions of detention in breach of the domestic standards (see, among other authorities, Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17, §§ 153-57, 17 March 2020). In the present case, the applicant complained about the conditions of his post-conviction detention which were, as indicated by him, below the national standard of two square metres per person. Therefore, there are no circumstances which could justify the applicant’s failure to have recourse to the new compensatory remedy.
It follows that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Remaining complaintsThe applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.
The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 July 2025.
 
 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
 Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention after conviction)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
 
Representative’s name and location
Facility
Start and end date
Duration
Inmates per brigade
Sq. m per inmate
 
Specific grievances
Other complaints
46293/17
09/06/2017
Viktor Alekseyevich LASDORF
1976
 
Zakarigayev Kamil Magomedsaidovich
Stavropol
IK-5 Mordovia
18/11/2014 to
28/02/2017
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 11 day(s)
130-150 inmate(s)
<2 m²
no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention – the applicant was allegedly detained in the absence of a court order from 08/04/2017 to 08/01/2018