CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; 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 } .sD024500 { height:36.6pt } .sD257B2AD { height:111.8pt } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF GRISHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 44437/21 and 30 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Grishin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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 or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 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. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial and/or administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia , no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 9.     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 and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 11.     Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article   13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, §   27, 26   March 2019). OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some 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. 13.     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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; and Idalov , cited above, §§   154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters. 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 these applications 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 their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings; 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 concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage during court hearings; 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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]     44437/21 30/08/2021 Nikita Nikolayevich GRISHIN 1989     Zheleznodorozhniy and Sverdlovskiy District Courts of Krasnoyarsk 19/04/2021   7,500     46219/21 30/08/2021 Dmitriy Nikolayevich SOLOVYEV 1998 Semenov Ilya Aleksandrovich Vologda Vologda Regional Court 22/04/2021   7,500     46407/21 19/08/2021 Sergey Mikhaylovich SUKHOV 1976     Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Solombalskiy District of Arkhangelsk, Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Primorskiy District of the Arkhangelsk Region 07/05/2021, 09/07/2021   7,500     46550/21 23/08/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich VIKTOROV 1977     Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court (pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500     46613/21 01/08/2021 Yevgeniy Yuryevich LOGINOV 1981     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 17/05/2021   7,500     47217/21 20/12/2021 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SMIRNOV 1979     Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 30/07/2021   7,500     52087/21 27/09/2021 Yuliya Anatolyevna LUTAY 1978     Podolsk Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court 06/04/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train/van, 11/06/2020 to 06/08/2021, 0.25   sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500     52595/21 22/11/2021 Gennadiy Nikolayevich ZVEREV 1993     Divnogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region (pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500     52604/21 24/09/2021 Vyacheslav Borisovich PODKORYTOV 1972     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Justice of the Peace of the Timanskiy Judicial Circuit of Ukhta, the Republic of Komi 13/05/2021   7,500   52865/21 04/10/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich GORYAYEV 1988     Lyambirskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia 10/06/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, 31/01/2020-27/08/2021, transportation in a single-prisoner cubicle measuring 0.3 sq. m, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural and electric light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding 8,500   53106/21 27/09/2021 Aleksandr Valeryevich DAVYDOV 1986     Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 05/07/2021   7,500   53108/21 06/10/2021 Pavel Aleksandrovich SKOBELEV 1991     Medvedevskiy District Court of the Republic of Mariy El, Supreme Court of the Republic of Mariy El 21/04/2021   7,500   53109/21 11/10/2021 Mstislav Mikhaylovich PETROV 1989     Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 02/06/2021   7,500   53311/21 04/10/2021 Valeriy Vakhtangovich KAN-SA-UNI 1979     Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg 19/08/2021   7,500   55138/21 30/09/2021 Mirza BOLKVADZE 1983 Perevozchikov Andrey Vladimirovich Yaroslavl Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl 29/09/2021   7,500   56037/21 15/11/2021 Mikhail Nikolayevich TERESHCHENKOV 1986 Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich St Petersburg Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 09/11/2021   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention since March 2021 and ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The appeal of 19/04/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18/05/2021; the appeal of 21/05/2021 against the detention order was examined on 22/06/2021; the appeal of 26/06/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18/08/2021; the appeal of 20/08/2021 against the detention order was examined on 20/09/2021; the appeal of 09/10/2021 against the detention order was examined on 09/11/2021; the appeal of 24/09/2021 against the detention order was examined on 11/11/2021. 9,750   56111/21 19/10/2021 Maksim Vyacheslavovich MANAKOV 1997     Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 09/06/2021   7,500   56726/21 15/10/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich MELNIKOV 1980     Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar, Syktyvkar Town Court 15/06/2021   7,500   56810/21 27/10/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich MOZHEGOV 1981     Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 18/06/2021   7,500   58290/21 21/11/2021 Aleksey Gennadyevich BRECHKO 1982 Nazarov Ilya Yuryevich Moscow Shchelkovo Town Court of the Moscow Region 21/05/2021   7,500   58392/21 05/10/2021 Rasul ISKANDARZOD 1992     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)     7,500   58405/21 05/11/2021 Dmitriy Yuryevich ARTEMYEV 1993     Kozlovskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 15/07/2021   7,500   6147/22 30/05/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BORODKIN 1990     Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 10/02/2022   7,500   6766/22 25/04/2022 Yuriy Nikolayevich UGRYUMOV 1973     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)       7,500   6770/22 17/01/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SHMAKOV 1988     Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   6933/22 30/12/2021 Aleksandr Vadimovich SIVKOV 1982     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi 17/09/2021   7,500   6945/22 31/12/2021 Vyacheslav Grigoryevich IGOSHIN 1993     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 23/08/2021   7,500   7478/22 18/01/2022 Mikhail Yuryevich PERCHENYUK 1978     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg 20/12/2021   7,500   9797/22 21/03/2022 Vadim Nikolayevich BUTANAYEV 1992     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 11/01/2022   7,500   10542/22 16/02/2022 Anton Vladimirovich BEZBORODOV 1986     Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 19/10/2021   7,500   39234/22 04/07/2022 Maksim Vladimirovich PLASHCHEV 1980     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 13/04/2022   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.