CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 2 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s89DB49F5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; 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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD046859D { width:101.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; 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 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF KLYACHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 38521/16 and 41 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Klyachkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Frédéric Krenc,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023, 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 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 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 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. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs   3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     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: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.     Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 9.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in 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, nos. 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. 10.     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. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 12.     In view of the above findings under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the 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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   103 ‑ 108 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Dirdizov v.   Russia , no.   41461/10, §§   108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5   others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy for the complaint about inadequate conditions during transport; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13   February 2018, concerning restrictions in connection with family visits for prisoners detained on remand; and Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, concerning a delayed release of a prisoner). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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.” 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications 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; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in a courtroom; 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 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year 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]     38521/16 17/06/2016 Dmitriy Nikolayevich KLYACHKOV 1981     Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Primorskiy District Court of St   Petersburg 03/04/2016   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 03/04/2015 – 03/04/2016 – transport in a single-prisoner cubicle; 0.49   sq. m. of personal space, no ventilation, no windows, inadequate temperature, transported on multiple occasions, duration of 2 ‑ 4 hours on each occasion (Tomov and Others v.   Russia, nos. 18255/10   et al., 9 April 2019, §§ 137-40);   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - pre-trial detention of a former investigator on charges of abuse of powers and falsification of evidence from 06/04/2015 to 02/04/2016, last appeal against the extension order – St   Petersburg City Court, 04/03/2016; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re ‑ offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 02/10/2015 (Basmannyy District Court of Moscow) was examined on 15/03/2016 (Moscow City Court). Appeal against the decision extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 30/12/2015 (Primorskiy District Court of St   Petersburg) was examined on 04/03/2016 (St Petersburg City Court);   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - limitation on visits in remand prison: the applicant complained that, within the period of his detention in the SIZO-1 of Moscow and SIZO-1 St   Petersburg (03/04/2015 – 03/04/2016) he was allowed visits with his wife only twice 9,750     20728/17 27/02/2017 Viktor Vladimirovich SOSNIN 1975     Cherepovets Town Court 20/02/2017   7,500     47409/17 25/06/2017 Zhelavdi Nasrudinovich GERIYEV 1993 Yermolayeva Nadezhda Viktorovna Moscow Shalinskiy Town Court of the Chechen Republic, Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic 28/12/2016   7,500     70513/17 28/04/2017 Sergey Anatolyevich KNYAZEV 1970     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 02/11/2017   7,500     74882/17 26/08/2017 Aleksandr Valeriyevich BOKHONOV 1975     Noginsk Town Court of the Moscow Region Video-link from SIZO, Shchyolkovo Town Court of the Moscow Region 29/03/2018; Video-link from SIZO 05/09/2018 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - 05/09/2018 - 06/09/2018, delay of almost 30 hours in releasing the applicant (see Butkevich v.   Russia, no.   5865/07, §   67, 13 February 2018) 9,750     36597/18 20/07/2018 Andrey Alekseyevich TETERIN 1979 Pekteyeva Nataliya Alekseyevna Moscow Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 17/04/2018   7,500     38005/18 28/07/2018 Lechi Khamzatovich BOLATBAYEV 1975 Magomedova Roza Saidovna Moscow Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow 06/11/2018 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of the Moscow City Court of 16/01/2018 and of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow of 19/04/2018 were examined on 06/03/2018 and 30/05/2018, respectively   8,000     38870/18 02/08/2018 Konstantin Grigoryevich SUPRYADKIN 1980     Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 13/07/2018 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by train on 27/08/2018 and 28/08/2018; insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking 9,750     38872/18 01/08/2018 Aleksandr Yuryevich GRIGORYEV 1971 Smirnova Anna Vladimirovna Moscow Rostov Regional Court 15/08/2019   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the detention order of the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov ‑ on-Don of 04/06/2018 was examined by the Rostov Regional Court on 05/07/2018 (appeal lodged on 07/06/2018) 8,000   39937/18 10/08/2018 Aleksandr Olegovich EBINGARD 1988 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar Syktyvkar Town Court 12/02/2018   7,500   39953/18 15/08/2018 Aleksey Feodosyevich OSOKIN 1970 Ryumin Yevgeniy Guryevich Vologda Vologda Town Court 17/07/2018   7,500   40611/18 15/08/2018 Pavel Aleksandrovich FOMICHEV 1985     Sokolskiy District Court of Vologda Region 29/03/2018 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on numerous occasions between 20/02/2017 and 29/03/2018 the applicant was transported between the remand prison and the courthouse in a single compartment measuring 0,3 sq. m. The trips lasted each time one hour. At the courthouse he was placed in a cell measuring 4 sq. m with two other inmates. There was no ventilation, windows or lighting.   8,500   41569/18 13/08/2018 Maksim Gennadyevich RYLCHSHIKOV 1987     Justice of the Peace of the Morozovskiy Judicial Circuit of Syktyvkar 23/05/2018   7,500   41691/18 16/08/2018 Vitaliy Vladimirovich VESELKOV 1977 Ikhsanov Albert Flyurovich Izhevsk Agryz District Court, Tatarstan Republic 26/10/2018   7,500   41766/18 15/08/2018 Yevgeniy Valeryevich BAZHUKOV 1984     Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 27/11/2019   7,500   42017/18 22/08/2018 Aleksandr Viktorovich ZOLOTAREV 1979 Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich Nizhniy Tagil Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg 21/03/2018     7,500   45962/18 10/09/2018 Semen Romanovich GRYAZEV 1997     Lefortovo District Court of Moscow 08/05/2018   7,500   47301/18 01/07/2019 Sergey Anatolyevich SKOBELIN 1985     Zabaykalskiy Region Court 11/01/2019   7,500   48919/18 01/10/2018 Igor Nikolayevich SEROV 1976     Bor Town Court 23/08/2018 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - from 26/05/2017 to 27/08/2018: van; 0.3   sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light   8,500   48934/18 01/10/2018 Pavel Yuryevich STEPANENKO 1976     Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Volgograd 22/08/2018   7,500   50630/18 18/10/2018 Maksim Yevgenyevich YEGOROV 1996 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 07/08/2018   7,500   50639/18 18/10/2018 Igor Olegovich ZAGUMENNYY 1989 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 31/07/2018   7,500   51223/18 20/10/2018 Vadim Vladimirovich KASHKIN 1969 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 05/06/2018   7,500   51644/18 16/10/2018 Rinat Ildusovich MAMETOV 1989 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Uvatskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region 24/07/2018   7,500   55027/18 24/10/2018 Nikitia Vladimirovich DEMKOV 1999 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Leninskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 05/07/2018   7,500   55422/18 08/11/2018 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELTYUKOV 1988     Justice of the Peace for judicial circuit no. 5 of the Leninskiy judicial district of Tyumen 15/05/2018   7,500   55598/18 13/11/2018 Vyacheslav Robertovich SHATROVSKIY 1969 Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod Tverskoy District Court of Moscow 24/05/2018 Moscow City Court, video link from IK-5 Kirov Region 20/09/2018   7,500   55653/18 16/11/2018 Pavel Andreyevich TERENIN 1988 Prokofyeva Viktoriya Pavlovna St Petersburg Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg 15/10/2018   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous transfers between the remand prison and the courthouse in an overcrowded van (10 to 12 inmates per compartment); transfers lasted from 1 to 1.5   hours; since 23/05/2018;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   55690/18 10/11/2018 Yevgeniy Yuryevich BAUROV 1991 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar Syktyvkar Town Court 11/05/2018 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by van on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse in the period between 06/06/2017 and 11/05/2018; overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air 8,500   55731/18 12/11/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BERCHENKO 1988 Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg Vyborgskiy City Court of the Leningrad Region 14/12/2018 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - multiple transfers by van from the detention facilities to a courthouse from 30/03/2017 to 08/04/2019; overcrowding (15 inmates were placed in a compartment measuring 3 sq. m); transfers lasted 3 hours;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   55741/18 03/11/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich GAVRILYUK 1985 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad 24/05/2018   7,500   55758/18 03/11/2018 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich KOSTYANYUK 1992 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Surgut Town Court 17/07/2018   7,500   55760/18 08/10/2018 Aleksandr Valentinovich SAKSIN 1963     Leninskiy District Court, Sovetskiy District Court, Tsentralnyy District Court and Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 08/06/2018   7,500   56256/18 03/11/2018 Sergey Nikolayevich OVCHINNIKOV 1959 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 04/06/2018   7,500   57269/18 21/11/2018 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich PROKOFYEV 1968     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk 17/06/2019   7,500   57308/18 29/10/2018 Maksim Vadimovich LUKIN 1994     Surgut Town Court 09/06/2018   7,500   57820/18 19/11/2018 Kirill Viktorovich GOLOVASHKIN 1991 Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich Nizhniy Novgorod Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod 03/08/2018   7,500   57831/18 19/11/2018 Andrey Ildarovich GILVANOV 1990     Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod 03/08/2018   7,500   58064/18 26/11/2018 Tural Orudzh Ogly YUSIFLI 1993       Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen 09/08/2018   7,500   58274/18 28/11/2018 Vasiliy Valerianovich KISKI 1983     Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk 01/10/2018   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and train from 03/02/2017 to 07/10/2018; was placed in single compartment: transfers lasted from 1.5 to 2 hours; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, inadequate temperature 8,500   58528/18 05/12/2018 Yegor Vladimirovich NOSKOV 1981 Medvedeva Anna Olegovna Moscow Basmannyy District Court and Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow 14/11/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport in van from 24/01/2018 to 01/04/2019: passive smoking, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, transfers (both ways) lasted 8 hours;     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport   8,500   58551/18 26/11/2018 Yevgeniy Petrovich VASILYEV 1977 Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 31/08/2018   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.