CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .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 } .s8B94EFD2 { height:326.4pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s943E7A94 { height:319.3pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF YELISTRATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 24453/17 and 32 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 November 2022       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Yelistratov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022, 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 dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. 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 of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention in the remand prison and the courthouse. 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 all or some of the applicants were detained in overcrowded cells in remand prison IZ-1 in Kazan for lengthy periods and were held for hours in the cramped holding cells (convoy cells), without access to fresh air or natural light, in the basement of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   96 ‑ 101, ECHR 2016; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   149 ‑ 59, 10 January 2012) in which the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no.   38004/12, §§ 145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, as regards detention in a metal cage or glass cabin during court hearings and inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Dirdizov v.   Russia , no.   41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov v. Russia   [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   154 ‑ 58, 161 ‑ 65, 22   May 2012, as regards an excessive length of detention review proceedings; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 114-56, 9   April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and absence of an effective remedy to complain about poor transport conditions; Volkov and Adamskiy   v. Russia , nos.   7614/09   and   30863/10, §§ 56-61, 26 March 2015, as regards the failure to provide the applicants with legal aid lawyers; and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia , nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, §§   39 ‑ 42, 14   December 2021 and Pavlova v. Russia , no. 8578/12, §§   31 ‑ 33, 18   February 2020, as regards restrictions on family visits in the remand prison and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.     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.” 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 172), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.     The Court further 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention; 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); 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 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     24453/17 06/03/2017   and   76929/17 04/10/2017   and   81812/17 01/11/2017   and   7312/18 16/01/2018   and   9727/18 06/01/2018   and   5193/19 08/01/2019 Andrey Vyacheslavovich YELISTRATOV 1994 Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer by a prison van after 18/11/2016 on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was detained on remand since 29/09/2014 without sufficient reasons;   Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 21/02/2017 (upheld on appeal on 23/05/2017), 16/05/2017 (upheld on appeal on 20/06/2017), and 08/08/2017 (upheld on appeal on 08/09/2017), 01/11/2017 (upheld on appeal on 19/12/2017);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence   – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     32552/17 21/03/2017   and   28123/18 16/05/2018   and   39955/18 10/08/2018 Nikolay Aleksandrovich SAVELCHEV 1989     Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg   Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was detained on remand since 14/04/2015 without sufficient reasons;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 10,000     33208/17 15/04/2017   and   4745/18 08/12/2017   and   8936/18 27/12/2017   and   41544/18 18/08/2018 Aynur Nailovich GARIFULLIN 1993   Maralyan Anna Strasbourg   Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was detained on remand since 30/09/2014 without sufficient reasons;   Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 16/05/2017 (upheld on appeal on 23/06/2017) and 08/08/2017 (upheld on appeal on 08/09/2017);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence   – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 10,000     34408/17 06/03/2017   and   82102/17 17/11/2017   and   9835/18 02/02/2018   and   27907/18 24/05/2018   and   39843/18 09/08/2018 Vladimir Aleksandrovich SAVELCHEV 1990 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg   Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – the applicant was detained on remand since 06/03/2015 without sufficient reasons;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     34663/17 15/04/2017   and   81200/17 02/11/2017   and   2763/18 15/12/2017 Maksim Yevgenyevich IONOV 1982 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg   and   Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna Moscow Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 16/05/2017 (upheld on appeal on 14/07/2017), 08/08/2017 (upheld on appeal on 08/09/2017) and 01/11/2017 (upheld on appeal on 15/12/2017)   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel during the trial hearings;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings due to lack of legal representation – no legal-aid counsel appointed to represent the applicant on appeal;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     46573/17 01/05/2017   and   5153/18 05/12/2017   and   34695/18 10/07/2018 Aleksandr Ivanovich ARZAMASOV 1990 Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna Moscow Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – continued detention on remand after 12/10/2017 without valid reasons;   Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 09/10/2017 and 15/11/2017, and against the detention orders of 16/05/2017 (upheld on appeal on 14/07/2017) and 08/08/2017 (upheld on appeal on 12/09/2017);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     76086/17 25/09/2017   and   27752/18 30/05/2018   and   34962/18 03/07/2018   and   41548/18 18/08/2018   Aleksey Yevgenyevich MISHIN 1991 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg   Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 5 (4) – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 21/02/2017 (upheld on appeal on 23/05/2017), 16/05/2017 (upheld on appeal on 04/07/2017), and 08/08/2017 (upheld on appeal on 08/09/2017);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     76213/17 25/09/2017   and   23047/18 10/04/2018   and   24927/18 06/12/2017   and   34440/18 07/07/2018 Irek   Ilshatovich SADRIYEV 1994 Maralyan Anna Strasbourg Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfers by a prison van in the period between 20/03/2018 and 03/10/2018;   Art. 5 (4) – the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 01/11/2017 (upheld on appeal on 15/12/2017);   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with legal-aid counsel;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law – in respect of conditions of detention during transport and restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities 9,500     3576/19 26/12/2018 Ismagil Rasikhovich VALEYEV 1994 Bokareva Valentina Aleksandrovna Moscow Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial and in a metal cage during the appeal hearing;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transfer between a remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair trial due to lack of adequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence – restrictions on conferring with a legal-aid counsel 9,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.