CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 février 2024

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 KHARLAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 31280/21 and 45 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 February 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Kharlamov 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 18 January 2024, 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 and/or administrative proceedings to which they were parties. 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 and/or administrative proceedings to which they were parties. 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.” 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.” 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, §§   92-156, 9   April 2019, related to inadequate conditions of transport ; Dirdizov v. Russia , no.   41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, as regards lengthy and unjustified pre-trial detention; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia , nos.   11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4 July 2013, as regards ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections. remaining complaints 14.     In application no. 36769/21 the applicant further complained under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention. The Court has examined those complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, they do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession, to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above) and to the previous awards made by the Court in earlier cases (see Sashkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 31606/13 and 9 others, 30 November 2017), it 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 complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as set out in the appended table), admissible and the remaining complaints in application no.   36769/21 inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 8 February 2024, 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]     31280/21 21/05/2021 Andrey Yuryevich KHARLAMOV 1979     Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 24/11/2020   3,250     31509/21 21/05/2021 Aleksey Andreyevich ABRAMOV 1988     Berdsk Town Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link) 25/11/2020   7,500     31580/21 04/10/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZIMAKIN 1988     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500     31744/21 27/05/2021 Ivan Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV 1980     Pskov Town Court, Pskov Regional Court (video link) 24/02/2021   7,500     31766/21 03/06/2021 Irina Vladislavovna TYUMENTSEVA 1972     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Samara, Samarskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court (video link) 03/12/2020   7,500     32139/21 01/06/2021 Vladislav Garunovich MASHUROV 1970     Suzdalskiy District Court of the Vladimir Region, Vladimir Regional Court 02/12/2020   7,500     32189/21 30/08/2021 Arat-ool Vasilyevich ARY 1993     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 01/07/2021   7,500     32190/21 15/07/2021 Timur Minnezakiyevich KHASANSHIN       Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 13/05/2021   7,500     32251/21 08/06/2021 Andrey Mikhaylovich IUS 1991     Novosibirskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link) 15/12/2020   7,500   32724/21 04/06/2021 Roman Olegovich YAKIMOV 1982 Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk Zheleznogorsk Town Court of the Kursk Region 17/12/2020   7,500   32811/21 13/09/2021 Sergey Olegovich ABOLMASOV 1985     Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   32824/21 01/06/2021 Olga Zurabovna SHCHEDRINA 1981 Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk Promyshlenniy District Court of Kursk 29/12/2020   7,500   32837/21 07/06/2021 Timur Arongulovich TEMIROV 1970     Amursk Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region 25/03/2021   7,500   32877/21 29/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich STEPANOV 1992     Achinsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   33064/21 31/05/2021 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich RUMYANTSEV 1985     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   33086/21 02/06/2021 Vladimir Yevgenyevich LISIN 1994 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   33101/21 11/06/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich RAZNOVAN 1988     Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma, Belovo Town Court of the Kemerovo Region (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   33358/21 02/06/2021 Konstantin Borisovich KLOPOTOVSKIY 1989 Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk Promyshlenniy District Court of Kursk 29/12/2020   7,500   33452/21 07/06/2021 Boris Zurabovich SICHINAVA 1979 Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich Kursk Promyshlenniy District Court of Kursk 29/12/2020   7,500   33850/21 08/06/2021 Aleksandr Yuryevich BRYANTSEV 1977     Basmanniy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (video link) 24/05/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Detention on remand from 02/04/2020 to 10/06/2021 in the absence of sufficient reasons aside from the gravity of the charges (punishable with over three years’ imprisonment) 9,750   34370/21 15/06/2021 Artur Vladimirovich TRUNOV 1975 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd 09/06/2021   7,500   34550/21 10/06/2021 Gennadiy Mikhaylovich KAPICHNIKOV 1984     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov 15/03/2021   7,500   34854/21 04/02/2021 Igor Vladimirovich YUSHKIN 1983     Volgograd Regional Court 17/09/2020   7,500   35133/21 22/06/2021 Kseniya Mikhaylovna KORSHUNOVA 1999 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd, Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   35369/21 20/01/2022 Denis Grigoryevich SABUROV 1985     Tsentralniy District Court of Chita 16/09/2021   7,500   35432/21 23/06/2021 Kristina Olegovna PUTYATINA 1989 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd, Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd; Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court 13/04/2021   7,500   36492/21 20/06/2021 Rafael Isameddin-ogly GEREYKHANOV 1977     Novosibirskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link) 23/12/2020   7,500   36537/21 03/07/2021 (4 applicants) Oleg Yuryevich VARFOLAMEYEV 1990   Ivan Sergeyevich BELOBORODOV 1984   Nikolay Vladimirovich ILYIN 1978   Dmitriy Anatolyevich KESLER 1966   Suslova Irina Aleksandrovna Vyborg Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region 05/03/2021   7,500   36769/21 01/07/2021 Yevgeniy Vasilyevich GALINSKIY 1985     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (video link) 12/02/2021 Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - The applicant, a convicted prisoner serving his sentence, was unable to vote in parliamentary elections (State Duma) in September 2021   7,500   37485/21 16/06/2021 Dmitriy Viktorovich KOSTYGOV 1981     Vologda Regional Court (video link) 13/05/2021   7,500   37691/21 28/06/2021 Dmitriy Vladimirovich OBUKHAN 1974     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   43409/21 14/08/2021 Dalgat Israpilovich GADZHIYEV 1981 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court (video link) (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   43920/21 02/08/2021 Yevgeniy Gennadyevich DRUZHININ 1976     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/02/2021   7,500   43921/21 02/08/2021 Dmitriy Borisovich KALININ 1981     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 24/03/2021   7,500   44382/21 13/08/2021 Gor Saakovich ZOGRABYAN 1986     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (video link) 31/05/2021   7,500   49802/21 05/11/2021 Roman Sergeyevich SKRYABIN 1984     Cherepanovskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link) (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   14136/22 17/02/2022 Roman Ruslanovich DEREVENKO 1996 Gurenko Vitaliy Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   14876/22 25/02/2022 Kirill Aleksandrovich YUSHIN 2005     Pervomayskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 25/08/2021   7,500   15083/22 02/03/2022 Nikolay Vladimirovich MOROZOV 1986     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi (video link) (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   15431/22 04/03/2022 Ivan Mikhaylovich PLAMADYALA 1987     Justice of the Peace of the Petrozavodskiy Court Circuit of Syvtyrkar, the Republic of Komi 30/12/2021   7,500   15966/22 25/02/2022 Andrey Anatolyevich PROTASOV 1980 Kavkazkiy Nikolay Yuryevich Moscow           Sixth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 26/08/2021   7,500   16182/22 02/03/2022 Stanislav Vyacheslavovich PINIGIN 1985     Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Republic of Mariy El, Supreme Court of the Republic of Mariy El, Sixth Appellate Court (video link) 18/01/2022 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transit cell - TPP-7 IK-19 Kazan from 23/09/2021 to 03/10/2021; van on 3/10/2021 during 17   hours train on 12/10/2021: Specific grievances: applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, handcuffing during escort. 8,500   16386/22 09/03/2022 Ruslan Rodionovich KHAMATDINOV 1995 Drobyshev Oleg Petrovich St Petersburg Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg 19/11/2021   7,500   16581/22 03/03/2022 Roman Valeryevich MOROZOV 1980     Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 02/12/2021   7,500   17382/22 17/02/2022 Akhmad Ibodullokhodzhayevich SULTONOV 1983     Kalininsky District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court (video link) 20/12/2021   7,500   18105/22 11/03/2022 Domennika Aleksandrovna BOYARINTSEVA 1982     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (video link) 20/09/2021   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.