CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 VOLOGDIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 60802/19 and 46 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 19 June 2025 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   STRASBOURG 18 April 2024     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Vologdin 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 28 March 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. 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). LOCUS STANDI OF Ms VOLOGDINA [1] 7.     The Court notes that one of the applicants, Mr Yevgeniy Vladimirovich Vologdin (application no. 60802/19), died and that his mother, Ms   Olga Aleksandrovna Vologdina, expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government did not express their position. 8.     The Court reiterates that, in cases in which an applicant died after having lodged an application, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. For the Court’s assessment of the person’s standing to maintain the application on behalf of a deceased, what is important is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to the heirs but whether the victim made a choice to exercise his or her right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention by activating the Convention mechanism (see Ergezen v. Turkey , no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014). The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014). In this connection, the Court reiterates that human rights cases before it generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v.   the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII). 9.     In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Vologdina has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to Mr Vologdin as the applicant in the present judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs   3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom 10.     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.” Some applicants also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievance under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which reads 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.” 11.     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, no. 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. 12.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20   and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 14.     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 15.     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 ‑ 08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10   April 2018, concerning administrative detention beyond the three hours’ time-limit; Krestovskiy v.   Russia , no. 14040/03, 28 October 2010, concerning the lack of a public hearing; and Resin v. Russia , no.   9348/14, §§   39-41, 18   December 2018, concerning refusal of long-term family visits in remand prisons). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 16.     Mr Rud (application no. 22446/20) also raised additional complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 17.     The Court has examined the complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 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 18.     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 applications nos. 11726/20 and 55085/21 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 that Ms Vologdina (application no. 60802/19) has standing to pursue the application in the late applicant’s stead; [2] Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it, as well as the complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table) admissible, and the remaining complaints raised in application no.   22446/20 inadmissible; 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in courtrooms; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 11726/20 and 55085/21; 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 18 April 2024, 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/Final date of placement in a cage Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     60802/19 15/11/2019 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich VOLOGDIN 1986   Deceased on 20/02/2023 Application pursued by Olga Aleksandrovna Vologdina [3] Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar and Krasnodar Regional Court, Videolink from SIZO-1, Krasnodar Region 16/07/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Inadequate conditions of transport in a van, train and transit cells between 22/08/2019-02/09/2019 with 0.3 m² per inmate, no ventilation, inadequate temperature, absence of safety belts in a van, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, lack or insufficient quantity of food,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport 8,500     61036/19 19/11/2019 Grigoriy Alekseyevich SMYKOV 1983 Kolesov Stanislav Yuryevich Slobodskoy Leninskiy and Oktyabrskiy District Courts of Kirov 11/06/2019     7,500     64574/19 29/11/2019 Andrey Olegovich FILIPPOV 1981 Zhikova Yelena Aleksandrovna Uray Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region - Yugra 30/05/2019   7,500     917/20 17/12/2019 Aleksandr Viktorovich LARIN 1985 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by videoconference from the cage of SIZO) 10/07/2019   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by train, 10 days, 29/07/2019 - 22/08/2019; lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water 8,500     1076/20 13/12/2019 Aleksandr Vasilyevich YAKUBENKOV 1995 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod and the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, video link from SIZO ‑ 1, Nizhniy Novgorod Region 03/07/2019   7,500     1840/20 12/12/2019 Sergey Vladimirovich YURIN 1975 Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary Pavlovo Town Court of Nizhniy Novgorod Region (hearings in person) Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court (video link from SIZO-1 Nizhniy Novgorod, 19/09/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van in s single-occupancy cell; from 20/12/2017 to 19/08/2019; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of space;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in respect of inadequate conditions of transport 8,500     2867/20 17/12/2019 Vasiliy Ivanovich PORTNOV 1964 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk Tungussko-Chunskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 29/07/2019     7,500     4276/20 27/01/2020 Maksim Olegovich MAKSIMOV 1984 Galtseva Margarita Valeryevna Saratov Balakovskiy District Court of the Saratov Region Proceedings pending on the date of lodging the application form with the Court Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse or to take part in investigative actions; ongoing since 30/10/2019 on the date when the application form was lodged with the Court; van; restricted access to toilet; transfer lasted 2 to 3 hours; 20 to 25   inmates per van having the capacity for 16 persons 8,500     5086/20 17/12/2019 Ruslan Vladimirovich GURULEV 1980 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk Shilkinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region and Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 16/07/2019   7,500   5301/20 21/01/2020 Yevgeniy Andreyevich STOVBA 1987 Yasman Pavel Aleksandrovich St Petersburg Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic 06/09/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transfers in train 26/01/2017 - 23/08/2019 on numerous occasions, between Pechora and Vorkuta; overcrowding, 0.3   sq. m per person, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet 8,500   6979/20 29/01/2020 Aleksandr Yevgenyevich PONOMAREV 1985 Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Astrakhan Akhtubinsk District Court (metal cages during court hearings) Astrakhan Regional Court (video link from SIZO-1, Astrakhan Region) 15/08/2019   7,500   8496/20 27/01/2020 Anatoliy Anatolyevich UGDYZHEKOV 1979   Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich LOSEV 1974   Tutachikov Vladimir Nikolayevich Askiz Askiz District Court of Khakasiya Republic 01/08/2019   7,500   8635/20 30/01/2020 Roman Alekseyevich KOLPASHCHIKOV 2000 Yezhov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Velikiy Novgorod Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region 01/08/2019   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - multiple accounts of transport in vans and transit cells (12/04/2019-01/08/2019) with lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, passive smoking;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   8706/20 30/01/2020 David Grigoryevich NAZAROV 1985 Myltsyn Dmitriy Andreyevich Moscow Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   11726/20 06/02/2020 Aleksey Mikhaylovich NEMOLYAYEV 1980 Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich Krasnoyarsk Krasnodar Regional Court; Supreme Court of Russia 20/08/2020   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.   14041/20 04/03/2020 Valentin Aleksandrovich DATSKO 1995 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar and Krasnodar Regional Court 10/09/2019   7,500   14372/20 27/02/2020 (6   applicants) Asim Rasim-ogly AKHMEDOV 1985   Sergey Aleksandrovich SLEPTSOV 1984   Yevgeniy Nikolayevich NABIULLIN 1987   Vladislav Fridovich BAYAZITOV 1971   Yakub Ilgarovich VELIYEV 1988   Aleksandr Sergeyevich KISILEV 1989 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Video link from unspecified SIZO 03/09/2019 Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - impossibility to have long family visits for 6   years in the remand prison due to the general policy; complaint raised also by each of the applicants 9,750     14657/20 04/03/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich VASILYEV 1969 Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan 05/11/2019   7,500   19365/20 18/03/2020 Oleg Vladimirovich MALTSEV 1975 Sergeyeva Yelizaveta Alekseyevna Tyumen Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 23/09/2019   7,500   20594/20 23/04/2020 Vladislav Timofeyevich NAVITSKIY 1999 Sergeyeva Yelizaveta Alekseyevna Tyumen Niznevartovsk Town Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region Yugra 13/01/2020   7,500   20892/20 20/02/2020 Andrey Vasilyevich SEMKOVICH 1981 Mironova Tatyana Sergeyevna St Petersburg Primorskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City court 11/09/2019   7,500   21278/20 04/05/2020 Vasiliy Yuryevich POVALYAKHIN 1984 Kipkaylov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Rostov na Donu Azov Town Court of the Rostov Region Rostov Regional Court; Video link from unspecified SIZO; 06/03/2020 and 03/04/2020   7,500   21640/20 06/04/2020 Nikita Vladimirovich NEARONOV 1996 Lashin Sergey Vadimovich Yekaterinburg Leninskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk 23/12/2019   7,500   21662/20 17/04/2020 Maksim Mikhaylovich BATISHCHEV 1989 Semiguzova Alana Vladimirovna Chita Moguchanskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region and Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 22/10/2019     7,500   22446/20 25/12/2019 Boris Mikhaylovich RUD 1974 Arko Olga Andreyevna St Petersburg Oktyabrskiy District Court of St   Petersburg and Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg; St Petersburg City Court; video link from SIZO-3, Leningrad Region 16/12/2019   7,500   22886/20 30/04/2020 Sergey Olegovich IGNATYEV 1994 Varava Valentina Yuryevna Pskov Detention in a metal cage during the trial hearing held in the courtroom of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no.   28 of Pskov 17/03/2020   7,500   24637/20 06/05/2020 Sergey Mikhaylovich MONOGOV 1977 Yesina Tatyana Robertovna Sevastopol Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk Video link from IK-6, Khabarovsk Region 03/12/2019   7,500   28418/20 07/06/2020 Sarvan Ismail ogly GASANOV 1988 Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Astrakhan Kirovskiy Disgtrict Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court Video link from an unidentified facility 19/03/2020   7,500   29121/20 13/07/2020 Andrey Aleksandrovich PROZOROV 1991 Kravchenko Sergey Anatolyevich Khanty-Mansiysk Nyagan Town Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region - Yugra 22/11/2019   7,500   29227/20 16/06/2020 Yegor Mikhaylovich KAYMASHNIKOV 1993 Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich Nizhniy Novgorod Moscow City Court, by way of videoconference from the detention facility 12/12/2019     7,500   29402/20 16/06/2020 Sergey Aleksandrovich FEDOTOV 1978 Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich Nizhniy Novgorod Moscow City Court,   video link from SIZO-4, Moscow 12/12/2019   7,500   30915/20 16/06/2020 Aleksandr Valeryevich KONDRATYEV 1984 Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich Nizhniy Novgorod Moscow City Court 12/12/2019   7,500   32058/20 21/07/2020 Vladimir Valeryevich TSYGANOV 1976 Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich Abakan Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 27/02/2020 Art. 6 (1) - trial in camera - hearings both before the trial court (Krasnoyarsk Regional Court) and the appeal court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) were held in camera 9,750   34443/20 30/05/2020 Yelena Yevgenyevna ROMANOVA 1982 Pavlenko Tatyana Nodariyevna St Petersburg Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; Video link from SIZO-5, Leningrad Region; 25/12/2019   4,450   35432/20 23/07/2020 Sergey Viktorovich MELNIKOV 1976 Kritskaya Olga Innokentyevna Krasnoyarsk Sverdlovskiy District and Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/01/2020   7,500   36405/20 17/08/2020 Irina Vsevolodovna KLEMENTYEVA 1963 Makarova Marina Vladimirovna Strasbourg Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Region Video link from SIZO, Chuvashia Region 10/12/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van (SIZO-2 Chuvashia Republic (Tsivilsk) - IVS Cheboksary - Leninskiy District Court) 10 occasions between 17/07/2019 and 19/12/2019; cramped individual compartments, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet; transfers lasted from 3 to 4 hours; personal space afforded was 0.3 to 0.6 sq.   m;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   36744/20 03/08/2020 Pavel Aleksandrovich MATYAKIN 1987 Baygildeyev Rustam Rashitovich Moscow Abdulinskiy District Court, the Orenburg Regional Court 06/11/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant complained of unlawful detention on 22/03/2020 as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) 9,750   40832/20 27/08/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich POLUYAN 1977 Blinov Artem Igorevich Rostov-na-Donu Rostov Regional Court, Video link from SIZO-1, Rostov Region 26/06/2020   7,500   43264/20 02/09/2020 Sergey Gennadyevich MARIN 1977 Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich Yekaterinburg Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court 30/07/2020   7,500   44610/20 12/09/2020 Kamil Boreyevich SHAMSUTDINOV 1980 Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Chelyabinsk Regional Court and Seventh Court of Cassation, video link from SIZO-1, Chelyabinsk Region 12/12/2019   7,500   51338/20 05/11/2020 Igor Nikolayevich BELSKIY 1987 Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich Cheboksary Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary/Supreme Court of Chuvashia 06/05/2020   7,500   53337/20 12/11/2020 Yuriy Vitalyevich MURZUKOV 1967 Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich Cheboksary Novocheboksarsk Town Court and the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 13/05/2020   7,500   293/21 23/11/2020 Oleg Vladimirovich KORCHUGANOV 1986 Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony the Chernogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia 19/03/2019 the applicant lodged a complaint with a court about the use of a metal cage; final decision by the Supreme Court of Russia issued on 30/07/2020     7,500   1035/21 23/11/2020 Oleg Anatolyevich MAGADEYEV 1980 Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Nea Skiony Chitinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalsk Region; Zabaykalsk Regional Court 25/05/2020   7,500   1180/21 14/12/2020 Aleksandr Valeryevich BAKAYEV 1990 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow the 4th Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 16/06/2020   7,500   3412/21 09/12/2020 Lyudmila Gennadyevna BUSHUYEVA 1987 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow Moscow City Court 10/06/2020   7,500   55085/21 18/10/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY 1983 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court 16/06/2022 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 29/03/2022; appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 16/06/2022; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   154-158, 22 May 2012) The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.     [1] Rectified on 19 June 2025: the text was missing [2] Rectified on 19 June 2025: the text was missing [3] Rectified on 19 June 2025: the text was missing [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.