CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .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 } .s3A97705A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; 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 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF BURKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 13567/13 and 41 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 December 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Burkov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 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. In application no. 35275/19 the Ukrainian Government exercised their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of the Court and submitted written comments, supporting the applicant’s claims. 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 and/or a glass cabin 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 and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. Some applicants also complained that they did not have 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. 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.     The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom). 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 and/or a glass cabin 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.     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 13.     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. 14.     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; Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§   145-53, and Urazov v. Russia , no. 42147/05, §§   85-90, 14   June 2016, concerning the impact of the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage or a glass cabin on the exercise of their rights to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance; Schatschaschwili v. Germany   [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva   v. Russia   [GC], no.   36658/05, §§   150-59, 18   December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial; Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§   58-110, 2   July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect (see appended table). REMAINING COMPLAINT 15.     In application no.   5903/15 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. 16.     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 matter complained of is within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.     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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’   claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 5903/15 and 35275/19. 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 complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and/or glass cabins in courtrooms and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no.   5903/15 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin 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 concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage and/or glass cabin 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos.   5903/15 and 35275/19. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   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]     13567/13 16/02/2013 Vasiliy Vladimirovich BURKOV 1972     Kurgan Town Court, Kurgan Regional Court 24/02/2015 Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - Charges of fraud, intentional bankruptcy and money laundering. The applicant was held in detention during two periods: from 05/09/2011 to 20/12/2012 and from 16/07/2014 to 24/02/2015. In between he was released on bail. Specific defects: fragility of the reasons used by the courts to extend the applicant’s detention; failure to examine alternative measures to detention; lack of due diligence on the part of the domestic courts.   9,750     5903/15 09/12/2014 Dmitriy Alekseyevich CHEBOTAREV 1984       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 23/06/2014 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the   lack of a possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial and lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the   metal cage: (judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi of 23/06/2014, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10/07/2015)   9,750     35275/19 03/06/2019 Vitaliy Olegovich BOYCHENKO 1993   Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna Moscow Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, placement in a metal cage during the trial and preparation to the appeal at least until 13/03/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of transport between the remand prison SIZO-1 of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, conditions of detention in the convoy cells on the premises of the Sovetskiy District Court between 14/05/2018 and 13/03/2019;   Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair criminal proceedings in view the lack of adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - Lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of and the scarce space inside the metal cage in the courtroom (5 co-defendants held in the cage measuring 1.05 m²), judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan of 13/11/2018, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/19;   Article 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the violation of the applicant’s right to legal assistance - Lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial and at the appeal stage, judgment of the Sovetskiy Disrict Court of Kazan of 13/11/2018, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/2019 9,000, in non-pecuniary damage,   and 500 in costs and expenses, to be paid directly   to the lawyer, Ms   Ye. Yefremova     9352/21 17/05/2021 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich PETUKHOV 1988     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 17/11/2020   7,500     13036/21 25/01/2021 Maksim Vladislavovich POLSKIY 1992     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 12/11/2020   7,500     14407/21 01/02/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich SVETTSOV 1979     Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Dovolenskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region, Dovolenskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 26/08/2020   7,500     14426/21 15/02/2021 Ilya Olegovich SAFRONOV 1986     Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court since 06/01/2021 and pending at least until the application was lodged with the Court   7,500     19458/21 20/08/2021 Dmitriy Sergeyevich SEMENOV 1988     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 05/03/2021   7,500     22929/21 12/04/2021 Svyatoslav Leonidovich GREKHOV 1990     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 10/02/2021   7,500   24421/21 06/05/2021 Abdul Vakhab Abazovich ISAYEV 1959 Anatoliy Viktorovich KURAGIN 1977 Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich Abakan Abakan Town Court (both applicants), Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia (both applicants), Eighth Cassation Court (Mr Kuragin) Since 04/06/2019 and until 17/11/2020   7,500   28516/21 19/04/2021 Ilya Aleksandrovich SHAKURSKIY 1996 Garoz Eldar Seifovich Moscow Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court, Appellate Military Court 20/10/2020 Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - anonymised witness "Kabanov" described the applicant as a terrorist, but the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to examine the witness in person in the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court. Requests by the defence were ignored. Use of the testimony of third persons who complained about ill-treatment and argued during the applicant’s trial that their pre-trial inculpating statements had been made under duress. 7,500   42906/21 15/12/2021 Aleksey Sergeyevich SALKOVSKIY 1979     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Berezovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 06/10/2021   7,500   43404/21 07/12/2021 Ivan Aleksandrovich KOKOVKIN 1985     Ramenskoye Town Court of the Moscow Region 13/07/2021   7,500   43953/21 16/08/2021 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich MELENTYEV 1977     Justice of the Peace of the Oktyabrskiy District of Syktyvkar 16/07/2021   7,500   44403/21 20/08/2021 Maksim Fernandovich BRUNO GARSIYA 1978     Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia 24/05/2021   7,500   44404/21 23/08/2021 Pavel Aleksandrovich SITNIKOV 1977     Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   45366/21 24/08/2021 Alla Anatolyevna BORISOVA 1974 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court 24/06/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - from IZ-1 Volgograd to IK-50 Krasnoyarsk Region between 11/08/2021 and 15/09/2021 (overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   46064/21 30/07/2021 Dmitriy Viktorovich KROKHIN 1984     Usinsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi 25/05/2021   7,500   46216/21 30/07/2021 Vladimir Vitalyevich NIKIFOROV 1977     Slobodskoy Court Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District of Syktyvkar, Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 25/02/2021   7,500   46506/21 23/08/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich PETIN 1987     Dovolenskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court 31/05/2021   7,500   48355/21 06/09/2021 Maksim Ivanovich BYRKANOV 1995     Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi 16/04/2021   7,500   48356/21 14/09/2021 Aleksey Yevgenyevich SHEMYAKIN 1991     Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk 30/06/2021   7,500   49635/21 08/11/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich BAKSHAYEV 1982     Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirov Region 13/10/2021   7,500   49689/21 08/11/2021 Mikhail Vladimirovich ANTONOV 1974     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   49940/21 21/02/2022 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELYASHOV 1976     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 18/11/2021   7,500   50032/21 13/12/2021 Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KHARIN 1978     Justice of the Peace of the Vuktylskiy Court Circuit of the Republic of Komi, Vuktyl Town Court of the Republic of Komi 26/07/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, single occupancy, 0.5 sq. m of personal space, 7 trips, duration 4-5 hours, transport involved ferry crossing, during the period between 26/04/2021 and 26/07/2021;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   50442/21 21/09/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich VIDERGOLD 1981     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza, Penza Regional Court 23/11/2021   7,500   50563/21 22/09/2021 Afanasiy Aleksandrovich VASILYEV 1976     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 14/04/2021   7,500   51382/21 15/03/2022 Andrey Yuryevich YEFIMOV 1984     Starorusskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   52784/21 23/09/2021 Yevgeniy Andreyevich ABRAMENKO 1993     Tatarskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 24/06/2021   7,500   56659/21 27/12/2021 Aleksandr Nikolayevich PONOMAREV 1978     Chitinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalsk Region 15/09/2021   7,500   60209/21 25/11/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich GORELOV 1981     Moscow City Court 27/05/2021   7,500   1094/22 19/11/2021 Sergey Valentinovich KHAYLOV 1986 Golubenko Andrey Nea Skioni The Second Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction 14/09/2021   7,500   9751/22 14/01/2022 Valeriy Anatolyevich POLOVINKIN 1961 Mamedov Sabir Akber Ogly St Petersburg Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Vsevolozhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrand Regional Court 22/11/2021 Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IVS Vsevolozhsk Town of the Leningrad Region (between 11/02/2021 and 22/12/2021);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 7,500   9968/22 15/01/2022 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ASEYEV 1984     Novokuybyshevsk Town Court of the Samara Region 18/11/2021   7,500   12147/22 24/01/2022 Bogdan Romanovich SPITSYN 1985     Priluzskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 20/10/2021   7,500   12702/22 03/02/2022 Vadim Nikolayevich YELKIN 1992     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov, Leninskiy District Court of Kirov 15/12/2021   7,500   12703/22 12/01/2022 Vladimir Mikhaylovich BUMBU 1989     Onega Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 21/12/2021   7,500   13786/22 10/02/2022 Yaroslav Nikolayevich POLIIT 1991     Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov 16/12/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 0.5 m x 0.8 m single-occupancy cubicle, lack of seat belts, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, during the period between 24/08/2021 and 16/12/2021 8,500   13868/22 18/02/2022 Konstantin Petrovich IVCHENKO 1970 Bityutskiy Andrey Albertovich Khabarovsk Pozharskiy District Court of the Primorye Region 09/02/2022   7,500   13971/22 02/02/2022 Eduard Yevgenyevich FILIPPOV 1978     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi 03/12/2021   7,500   13973/22 14/02/2022 Denis Vyacheslavovich PROKHOROV 1982     Bolotninskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 19/11/2021   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.