CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 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 } .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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 } .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 NAZAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 23242/20 and 49 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Nazarov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 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 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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom 7.     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. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, 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. 9.     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. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5   others, §§   114-56, 9   April 2019, concerning conditions of detention during transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     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’ remaining complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see 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, Vorontsov 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 facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the applicants’ placement in a meatal cage in the course of the criminal proceedings against them and other complaints raised under the well ‑ established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the attached table, admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms under Article 13 of the Convention; 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 (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 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   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   Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment/End date of the placement in a metal 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]     23242/20 12/05/2020 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich NAZAROV 1984 Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 24/01/2020   7,500     23933/20 22/05/2020 Denis Aleksandrovich SADOVSKIY 1987 Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region 23/12/2019   7,500     24043/20 22/05/2020 Tynchtykbek Avazbekovich ZHOLBOLDUYEV 1984 Military Court of the Central Circuit 17/02/2020   7,500     24445/20 18/05/2020 Natalya Nikolayevna RAZUMNAYA 1981 Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don; Rostov Regional Court In person at courts and via video link (location not specified) 27/04/2021   7,500     24700/20 08/06/2020 Ivan Yevgenyevich ONKOV 1983 Zheleznododrozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (confinement in a metal cage during studying of a case-file) 23/12/2019   7,500     24827/20 29/05/2020 Oleg Radikovich GIMAZOV 1993 Novo-Savinovskiy Distric Court of Kazan, Tatarstan Republic 29/10/2019   7,500     25038/20 10/04/2020 Pavel Vitalyevich LUBENTSOV 1981 Detention in a metal cage on multiple occasions during the detention and trial hearings at the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saint Petersburg 29/06/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport between the remand prison and the Frunzenskiy District Court of St   Petersburg on multiple occasions from 27/12/2018 to 29/06/2020 (0.2-0.3 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, no individual seat); time of transfer from 2 to 4 hours;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500     25417/20 18/05/2020 Gennadiy Vladimirovich RUSAKOV 1985 Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg On-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transport; since 10/07/2018 to 21/11/2019 between the detention facility and the courthouses; van and transit cell; 0.7 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet 8,500     25425/20 16/04/2020 Dmitriy Andreyevich ZAZDRAVNOV 1986 Tsentralnyi District Court of Krasnoyarsk 22/11/2019     7,500   25721/20 19/03/2020 Mikhail Mikhaylovich KHOKHLOV 1980 Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar of the Komi Republic 25/02/2020   7,500   25758/20 04/06/2020 Abror Akhralovich AZIMOV 1990 Detention in a glass cabin during the hearings held on multiple occasions in the courtroom of the First Western Circuit Military Court (0.3 sq. m of personal space) 10/12/2019     Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, numerous occasions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse between 02/04/2019 and 10/12/2019; specific grievances: inadequate temperature, overcrowding (0.25 sq. m per inmate), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air 8,500   26061/20 15/10/2020 Sarkis Samvelovich VAGANYAN 1997 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk On-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   26068/20 28/04/2020 Maksim Sergeyevich TSATNEV 1986 Oktyabrskiy and Lomonosovskiy District Courts of Arkhangelsk On-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   26445/20 05/06/2020 Denis Aleksandrovich POPOV 1981 Kineshema Town Court of the Ivanovo Region, Ivanovo Regional Court 03/10/2019   7,500   26478/20 04/08/2020 Nikolay Maksimovich MEDVEDEV 1993 Kalininskiy District Court of Tumen 11/06/2020   7,500   26578/20 22/06/2020 Maksim Aleksandrovich PESHKOV 1981 Karymskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region; Zabaykalskiy Region Court 04/03/2020   7,500   26608/20 22/04/2020 Mikhail Alekseyevich PATYUKOV 2000 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Town Court 21/01/2021   7,500   26649/20 16/04/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich MESHCHERSKIY 1986 Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd; Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd; Volgograd Regional Court On-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   26841/20 21/05/2020 Vasiliy Ivanovich LOBANOV 1985 Priluzskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 26/11/2019   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in prison trains on 07/11/2019, 08/11/2019, 17/11/2019 (bunk beds, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light);   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   26902/20 20/03/2020 Dmitriy Andreyevich VOLOZHENINOV 1985 Sosnogorsk Town Court 25/09/2019   7,500   27287/20 08/05/2020 Artur Rishatovich BASMANOV 1987 Supreme Court of Republic of Bashkortostan; Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; Video link from SIZO-3, Republic of Bashkortostan 12/12/2019   7,500   28099/20 13/05/2020 Aleksandr Gennadyevich KOSTINEVICH 1966 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/03/2020   7,500   28468/20 04/08/2020 Dmitriy Sergeyevich POLYAKOV 1979 Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Sverdlovsk District Court of Krasnoyarsk 22/07/2020           7,500   28493/20 19/05/2020 Vladimir Sergeyevich KAZACHKOV 1991 Sovetskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorye Regional Court; Fifth Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction; Fifth Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction; Video link from unspecified SIZO; 16/03/2020   7,500   28846/20 14/09/2020 Ilya Leonidovich GOLOVACH 1987 Inta Town Court of the Komi Republic 13/10/2020   7,500   29380/20 03/04/2020 Mark Yevgenyevich PANTYUKHIN   Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo 04/12/2019   7,500   29386/20 07/04/2020 Aleksandr Nikolyevich YEROSHEVICH 1973 Sovetskiy District Court of Khanty Mansiysk 18/09/2019   7,500   29387/20 02/04/2020 Nauris Sairovich DAVLETBAKOV 1972 Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 20/12/2019   7,500   29390/20 02/04/2020 Aleksandr Vladislavovich IVANOV 1998 Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 20/02/2020   7,500   30272/20 29/08/2020 Kirill Petrovich MORGACH 1985 Severodvinsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region 16/03/2020         7,500   30366/20 01/06/2020 Aleksey Nikolayevich SKVORTSOV 1979 Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court On-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   30386/20 27/10/2020 Sergey Vladimirovich FISENKO 1974 Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 30/12/2019   7,500   30570/20 17/04/2020 Ramis Railevich FAYZULLIN 1995 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 02/12/2019   7,500   30690/20 23/06/2020 Roman Aleksandrovich LEBEDEV 1983 Zheleznodorozhnyy District, Tsentranyy District and Oktyabrskiy District Courts of Krasnoyarsk 23/12/2019   7,500   30950/20 17/06/2020 Aleksey Alekseyevich FROLENKO 1989 Military Court of the Vorkuta Garrison 30/12/2019   7,500   33579/20 20/07/2020 Sergey Stepanovich DERZHIPILSKIY 1996 Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court 05/02/2020   7,500   33654/20 20/07/2020 Aleksandr Valeryevich IVANNIKOV 1990 Komsomolskiy District Court of the Khabarovsk Region and Fifth Appellate Court of Common Jurisdiction 21/01/2020   7,500   35504/20 21/07/2020 Denis Nikolayevich VLASOV 1980 Tsentralniy District Court of Tumen 02/03/2020   7,500   35682/20 21/07/2020 Denis Sergeyevich SPIRIDONOV 1977 Ezhvinsky District Court of Syktyvkar 22/07/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transportation on numerous occasions between 28/03/2017 and 02/12/2020 (more than 100 times), 0.4 sq. m per person, inadequate furniture, no safety belts or other safety measures 8,500   35685/20 21/07/2020 Yuriy Yuryevich POLITOV 1966 Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 22/07/2020 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 - van between 15/10/2017 and 01/10/2020 on numerous occasions (120 transfers from 20 to 50 minutes) 8,500   35838/20 27/07/2020 Ilnar Ilyasovich ZYALILOV 1980 Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court in the building of the Kazan Garrison Military Court 05/02/2020   7,500   36408/20 29/07/2020 Maksim Aleksandrovich KLYUKVIN 1978 Justice of the Peace of Vorkuta, Komi Republic 05/06/2020   7,500   36702/20 05/08/2020 Nikolay Vladimirovich KOCHETKOV 1990 Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 19/05/2020   7,500   36824/20 03/08/2020 Ilnaz Ravilovich SAFIULLIN 1986 Privolzhye Military Circuit Court 05/02/2020   7,500   37397/20 28/05/2020 Tatyana Sergeyevna SEZINA 1983 Tsivilskiy District Court of the Chuvashia Republic; Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic 26/02/2020   7,500   37706/20 20/07/2020 Maksim Vitalyevich ZAVALIN 1982 Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg 18/03/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by prison van between the detention facilities and the courthouse from 29/12/2017 to 18/03/2020; 0.4 sq. m of personal space; accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of fresh air, mouldy or dirty cell, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, passive smoking, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet 8,500   37709/20 21/07/2020 Yuriy Andreyevich ANDREYEV 1985 Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St   Petersburg 09/04/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport on numerous occasions by van between the detention facility and the courthouse from 04/07/2019 to 20/01/2020; overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, passive smoking 8,500   38790/20 08/08/2020 Pavel Vladimirovich ANDRAKHANOV 1980 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 22/01/2020   7,500   40443/20 16/06/2020 Yuriy Nikolayevich VARNIKOV 1985 Arkhangelsk Regional Court (glass cabin, nine defendants were placed in the cabin) The criminal proceedings were pending as of 16/09/2022   7,500   40998/20 27/08/2020 Yakov Yegorovich DAVYDOV 1974 Almetievsk Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic 30/07/2020   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.