CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF KULMINSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 50992/16 and 10 others – see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   4 October 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kulminskiy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article   3 of the Convention. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     In applications nos.   71850/16 and 29273/17, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of the detention on remand; Idalov v. Russia (no. 2) , no.   41858/08, 13   December 2016, regarding conditions of transport, and Khudobin v.   Russia , no. 59696/00, ECHR 2006 ‑ XII (extracts), related to defects in the judicial review of detention matters. IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In applications nos.   57403/16, 60790/16, 71850/16, 27716/17, 29273/17, 32657/17 and 38123/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do 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 applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos.   57403/16, 60790/16, 71850/16, 27716/17, 29273/17, 32657/17 and 38123/17 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (use of metal cages in courtrooms) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     50992/16 16/08/2016 Vladimir Anatolyevich Kulminskiy 08/07/1973     Bezhitskiy District Court of Bryansk 17/03/2016   7,500     57403/16 09/09/2016 Aleksey Stepanovich Achapkin 25/05/1976     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/03/2016   7,500     60790/16 03/10/2016 Dzheddi Fetkhi 05/04/1985 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg 16/05/2016   7,500     71850/16 18/11/2016 Nikita Anatolyevich Sokov 03/02/1980 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Leninsky District Court of Kostroma 19/10/2016 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by prison van on regular basis to court hearings in the period from 07/05/2016 to 19/10/2016,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention from 07/05/2016 to 13/10/2016 9,750     15940/17 09/02/2017 Ruslan Elvirovich Salyakhov 29/09/1993     Khanty-Mansiysk District Court of Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region 24/10/2016   7,500     27716/17 28/03/2017 Pavel Aleksandrovich Belyakov 27/07/1996     Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region 02/03/2017   7,500     29273/17 02/04/2017 Vladimir Viktorovich Kukolenko 06/07/1982 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, a number of hearings on 29/10/2015, 17/12/2015, 20/01/2016, 10/02/2016, 09/03/2016, and hearings between 28/03/2016 and 27/10/2016 Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in judicial proceedings in review of the lawfulness of detention - Complaints about the applicant’s appeals against the extension of detention orders dated 25/08/2016, 23/09/2016, 07/10/2016 not having been reviewed by an appellate court. 8,000     32657/17 07/04/2017 Stanislav Sergeyevich Sozonov 03/01/1994     Yalutovskiy District Court of Tyumen 21/10/2016   7,500     38123/17 12/05/2017 Dmitriy Vladimirovich Antonov 11/02/1977     Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region, placement in a metal cage during numerous court hearings with the most recent one on 09/03/2017   7,500   72059/17 26/09/2017 Anatoliy Yuryevich Kurilenko 27/12/1989     Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg 27/03/2017   7,500   72822/17 04/09/2017 Aleksey Valeryevich Markushin 29/03/1974     Khanty-Mansiyskiy District Court of Khanty ‑ Mansiyskiy Region 11/04/2017   7,500   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.