CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 mars 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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .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 } .sECB6A556 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; 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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size: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 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF GORBENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 8461/20 and 43 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 March 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Gorbenko and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 February 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 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 VIOLATIONS 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 parties. 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; 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; and Fetisov and Others v. Russia , nos.   43710/07   and 5   others, §§   139-145, 17 January 2012, regarding inappropriate interference with the right of individual petition. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     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 that the finding of a violation in application no. 20357/21 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v.   Russia [Committee], nos.   26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15   September 2022). It further finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants. 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 that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 20357/21; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 7 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   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]     8461/20 28/01/2020 Aleksandr Vitalyevich GORBENKO 1991     Ust-Abakanskiy District Court of the Republic of Khakassia 10/01/2020   7,500     11463/21 03/02/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich YAGUBKIN 1984     Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia 04/08/2020   7,500     12272/21 20/04/2021 Nikita Yuryevicha POPOV 1988     Khatangskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 06/11/2020   7,500     13335/21 10/02/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich BARANOV 1967     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 22/09/2020   7,500     13582/21 03/02/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SUVOROV 1984     Petrodvortsoviy District Court of St Petersburg 04/08/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport in a van (0.2 sq. m of personal surface, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light) from 03/07/2020 to 04/08/2020;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport   8,500     14688/21 23/02/2021 Grigoriy Ivanovich KORZHOV 1973     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link) 23/10/2020   7,500     15163/21 09/02/2021 Nikolay Sergeyevich LOBKOV 1995     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 27/01/2021   7,500     15170/21 03/02/2021 Mikhail Sergeyevich SARIYEV 1988     Chernovskiy District Court of Chita 02/02/2021   7,500     15171/21 04/02/2021 Maksim Yuryevich KLIMOV 1987     Chernovskiy District Court of Chita 30/11/2020   7,500   15186/21 18/02/2021 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich BELASH 1992     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 21/01/2021   7,500   15247/21 17/09/2021 David Aleksandrovich KYACHEV 1976     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 19/07/2021   7,500   15611/21 24/02/2021 Aleksandr Igorevich TELEGIN 1986     Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   15659/21 18/02/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KOPYLOV 1987     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 19/08/2020   7,500   15669/21 24/02/2021 Aleksey Nikolayevich PODYACHEV 1977     Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region (video link) (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   15695/21 01/03/2021 Ramin Magamed ogly ALIYEV 1978     Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court (video link) 01/10/2020   7,500   15782/21 01/03/2021 Vladimir Aleksandrovich MURASHKIN 1985     Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court (video link) 01/10/2020   7,500   15846/21 04/03/2021 Vladimir Igorevich NOVIK 1988     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   15849/21 08/02/2021 Marina Vladimirovna MIKHAYLOVA 1992     Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Republic of Mariy El 11/11/2020   7,500   16055/21 25/02/2021 Zubaydullo Sharifovich REZMONOV 1981     Tsentalniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   16057/21 24/02/2021 Nikolay Mikhaylovich KOZLOVSKIY 1983     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 18/02/2021   7,500   17061/21 10/03/2021 Aleksey Vasilyevich KUKLIN 1984     Ingodinskiy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 30/11/2020   7,500   17370/21 10/03/2021 Viktor Stepanovich DOBRIOGLO 1971     Gorodishchenskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region, Volgograd Regional Court (video link) 15/12/2020   7,500   17399/21 02/03/2021 Nikita Nikolayevich BLINOV 1991     Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirovsk Region 12/01/2021     7,500   19610/21 16/06/2021 Igor Viktorovich BOCHKAREV 1986     Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 17/12/2020   7,500   19881/21 10/03/2021 Pavel Andreyevich FETISOV 1984     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 15/12/2020   7,500   20345/21 11/03/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich KONSTANTINOV 1978     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 22/12/2020   7,500   20357/21 22/03/2021 Vadim Vladislavovich GORBULYA 1973     Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg 01/10/2020   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction   21048/21 31/03/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich PUSHKIN 1991     Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   21076/21 11/03/2021 Nikita Vladimirovich PANKRATOV 2000     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 28/01/2021   7,500   22549/21 18/08/2021 Kirill Yevgenyevich AVDEYEV 1982     Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 11/06/2021   7,500   22636/21 07/04/2021 Denis Olegovich RENSKOV 1987     Moscow City Court 07/10/2020   7,500   22744/21 07/04/2021 Mikhail Vladimirovich KOROBEYNIKOV 1984     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 02/11/2020   7,500   22750/21 09/04/2021 Yevgeniy Vasilyevich PARNACHEV 1981     Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 21/10/2020   7,500   22838/21 29/03/2021 Yan Yuryevich KYDYYEV 1992     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   24279/21 26/08/2021 Omar Gazimagomedovich ISMAILOV 1978     Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court) Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - Permanent video surveillance in the solitary confinement cell (PKT) of IK-8 Komi Republic where the applicant was placed between 20/02/2021 and 24/11/2021   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 7,500   24422/21 14/09/2021 Pavel Aleksandrovich LEVIYAYNEN 1973     Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   25324/21 11/03/2021 Grigoriy Vadimovich SEREBROV 1996     Inta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 16/11/2020   7,500   25363/21 30/04/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich SHLENCHAK 1983     Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk 11/11/2020   7,500   25565/21 24/08/2021 Stanislav Nikolayevich OVCHINNIKOV 1988     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   25627/21 18/06/2021 Anatoliy Vladimirovich TIKHONOV 1989     Sharypovo Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 09/03/2021   7,500   26105/21 05/05/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich LITVINOV 1975     Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region, Kemerovo Regional Court 18/01/2021 Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition   - The application form is signed by the applicant’s wife. The colony’s administration (IK-41 Kemerovo Region) does not allow him to send correspondence, copy the documents, and threatens him with a punishment cell 7,500   27901/21 22/04/2021 Andrey Valeryevich YEMELYASHIN 1972     Uyar Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   28284/21 06/07/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GORNOV 1986     First Appellate Court (video link) 27/01/2021   7,500   28341/21 29/03/2021 Ivan Viktorovich GOLOSHCHAPOV 1994     Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg 24/03/2021   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.