CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CHAPODZE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 50599/16 and 10 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Chapodze and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 July 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 of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. 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 ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§   35 ‑ 57, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v.   Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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 refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with law” and that the physical separation of the applicants from their visitors by means of a glass partition cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     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; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Gorodnichev v. Russia , no. 52058/99, §§   98-109, 24 May 2007, concerning handcuffing of defendants in the courtroom; Pavlova v. Russia , no. 8578/12, §§   29 ‑ 33, 18 February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about restrictions on family visits in pre ‑ trial detention facilities, Chaldayev , cited above, §§   69-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the remaining complaints raised by some applicants under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms and under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no.   10597/13, §   27, 26   March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention about various restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by some of the applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; 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 the appended table); 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 5 September 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Detention facility Type of restriction Other relevant information Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [1]     50599/16 17/08/2016 (2   applicants) Household Larisa Vladimirovna CHAPODZE 1964 Yermalo Grigoryevich CHAPODZE 1969     SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits the second applicant was detained in SIZO-1 from 14/08/2013 to 20/07/2016   3,500     17891/18 28/03/2018 (4   applicants) Household Oleg Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV 1977 Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV 1970 Irina Vladimirovna LOKTIONOVA 1972 Svetlana Ivanovna LOKTIONOVA 1949   Prikhodkina Valeriya Yuryevna Chelyabinsk SIZO-3 Chelyabinsk refusal of long-term family visits The first applicant was detained in SIZO-3 from 31/02/2015 to 07/11/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaints raised under Article 8,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared to convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits,     Art. 3 - torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - On 12/04/2018 and 13/04/2018 the first applicant was held handcuffed in a glass cabin during the pronouncement of the judgment in his criminal case. The applicant’s relevant complaint was reviewed repeatedly by courts at four levels of jurisdiction. The final decision on the matter dismissing the applicant’s complaint was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23/07/2021. The courts ruled that handcuffing had been necessary for security reasons. 10,000, to be paid to the first applicant   and     3,500, jointly to the remaining three applicants     2339/19 24/11/2018 Konstantin Aleksandrovich CHERNOV 1975 Isachenkov Semen Borisovich Madrid SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region refusal of short-term family visits The applicant and his family were refused visits from 06/04/2018 to 04/07/2018 Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500     8452/19 15/01/2019 Emil Fanilevich SHANGAREYEV 1993     SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic refusal of short-term family visits The applicant was refused family visits since 03/08/2018 while the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - belated review of the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention of 28/01/2019 - appeal by the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court on 06/03/2019,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - The applicant was transported about 50 times between the remand prison and the courthouse pending criminal proceedings against him between 08/02/2019 and 26/04/2019: no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light. Each of the trips took about 3 to 4 hours,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was held in a metal cage during the hearings at the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court on numerous occasions between 08/02/2019 and 26/04/2019 9,750     51956/19 26/09/2019 Marat Mukhamadeyevich GALEYEV 1982 Kamalov Oleg Ilfatovich Kazan SIZO-2 Kazan refusal of short-term family visits The applicant was remanded in custody on 01/02/2018. While in custody, he was allowed only one short-term family visit on 18/02/2019; no more visits from the family while the criminal proceedings against him continued to be pending Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits 3,500     53207/19 25/09/2019 (2 applicants) Household Sona Magatamovna SHAMSHILOVA 1983 Rustam Alisovetovich SHAMSHILOV 1980 Mitrokhina Yuliya Vyacheslavovna Novosibiisk SIZO-1 Novosibirsk refusal of short-term family visits From 18/05/2018 to 13/05/2019. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500     49742/20 13/10/2020 (5 applicants) Household Danis Miratovich FAYZRAKHMANOV 1988 Elnara Muradovna AMIROVA 1989 Amira Danisovna FAYZRAKHMANOVA 2014 Guzaliya Magsumovna FAYZRAKHMANOVA 1959 Mirat Magfuryanovich FAYZRAKHMANOV 1962       SIZO-3 Bashkortostan Republic refusal of long-term family visits Five applicants, all family members (parents, wife and a child of the detainee) The first applicant was in detention on remand allegedly from 04/02/2015 to 21/09/2020. He was convicted of terrorism on 30/07/2018 (final decision – Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 21/09/2020). During that period, he and his family requested long-term visits on several occasions from the SIZO administration and domestic courts, but to no avail. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits 3,500     50071/20 18/10/2020 Kikito Dzhanikovich KUPREISHVILI 1970     SIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant has been in detention since 2014 Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 16/09/2021 – appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 21/10/2021 (appeal lodged on 21/09/2021); detention order by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 24/12/2021 – appeal decision by the Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 03/02/2022,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transfers between the remand prison and the courthouse during the criminal proceedings against the applicant (since 25/01/2017): applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, inadequate temperature,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of long-term family visits in remand prison and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 5,000     32509/21 14/06/2021 Vladimir Vladimirovich SALOVATOV 1989     SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant was detained in SIZO-1 from 30/10/2020 to 26/02/2022 Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   39874/21 21/07/2021 Yaroslav Vladimirovich SUMBAYEV 1990 Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow SIZO-1 Moscow refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of phone calls to family members In detention facility since 24/10/2019. Most of his requests were dismissed as they lacked important information (full name of the family members, their passport details, address, phone number, language of conversation). Wife, daughter, mother, grandmother were not allowed to visit the applicant in prison. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order issued by the Moscow City Court on 25/01/2021 was reviewed by the First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 04/03/2021 4,000   59791/21 17/11/2021 Natalya Andreyevna CHAPLYGINA 1982     SIZO-1 Tver Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant’s husband served a life sentence in IK-18, Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Region. On 25/07/2019 he was transferred to SIZO-1 in Tver Region, in connection with another set of the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s husband was detained in SIZO-1 as of 03/11/2021. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of long-term family visits in remand prison 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.