CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .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 } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; 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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; 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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF MISAKYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 41542/20 and 48 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Misakyan and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 October 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 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 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, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos.   6232/20   and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) 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 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, and Tomov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5   others, §§   92 ‑ 156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; N.T. v. Russia , no.   14727/11, §§   32-57, 2   June 2020, regarding routine handcuffing and inadequate conditions of detention of prisoners serving a life sentence; Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§   101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Korshunov v. Russia , no.   38971/06, §§ 59-63, 25 October 2007, as regards absence of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of a right to trial within a reasonable time; and Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2   others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees 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). 13.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.     The Court has examined these 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, these complaints 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. 15.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     As to the applicants in applications nos.   44384/20, 29704/21 and 32074/21, the Court takes into account the previous awards made to these applicants and considers that the finding of a violation will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (compare 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), 17.     As to the remaining applicants and regard being had to the documents in its possession, to awards made in previous cases to some of these applicants 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 metal 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, finds that there is no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the use of metal cages, and declares the remainder of the applications 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 the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds (a)   that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 44384/20, 29704/21 and 32074/21 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction; (b)   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; (c)   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 November 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     41542/20 04/08/2020 Georgi Malkhazovich MISAKYAN 1973 Krasnoyarsk Regional Court: on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500     41646/20 12/08/2020 Roman Alekseyevich SMAGIN 1992 Severodvinsk Town Court 06/05/2020 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 - transport on a number of occasions by van between the detention facilities and the courthouse during the criminal proceedings from 19/11/2019 to 06/05/2020; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature 8,500     41805/20 28/08/2020 Vitaliy Yakovlevich LIPPS 1986 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita of the Zabaykalskiy Region, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 07/12/2020   7,500     42953/20 24/06/2020 Dmitriy Andreyevich KLIPPERT 1989 Oktyabskiy District Court of Penza on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500     44384/20 17/09/2020 Oleg Gennadyevich LEONOV 1980 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/08/2020     The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.     45037/20 24/09/2020 Oleg Nikolayevich YELGIN 1967 Chernovskiy District Court of Chita 29/01/2020   7,500     45644/20 28/04/2021 Denis Andreyevich LODYGIN 1990 Justice of the Peace of the Kuratovskiy Judicial Circuit of Syktyvkar 10/03/2021   7,500     46354/20 13/10/2020 Stanislav Stanislavovich TSURIK 1961 Zyevskiy District Court of Kirov Region 22/07/2020   7,500     46982/20 07/09/2020 Aleksey Yuryevich KONDRATYEV 1986 Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic 18/09/2020 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 - overcrowding (0.3   sq.   m per inmate), lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of fresh air during transportation in a train between 23/07/2020 and 25/07/2020, between 19/08/2020 and 20/08/2020, between 28/12/2020 to 29/12/2020 8,500   46994/20 24/12/2020 Oleg Anatolyevich TOBOLIN 1980 Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Komi Republic 09/11/2020   Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Komi Republic 31/05/2021       7,500   47557/20 28/09/2020 Artem Vadimovich YEREMICHEV 1989 Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 18/10/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - length of pre ‑ trial detention: from 14/08/2019 to 13/08/2020 and after quashing the initial judgment by the cassation court from 21/04/2021 to 18/10/2021, use of standard formula to extend the applicant’s detention; failure to consider alternative measures; fragility of the reasons employed;   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Art. 5 § 3 of the Convention 9,750   47805/20 30/09/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich PLOTNIKOV 1982 Justice of the Peace of the Judicial Circuit of the Chibyuskiy District of Ukhta, Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 24/07/2020   Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 07/10/2021   2,750   47991/20 08/10/2020 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich CHERNOKNIZHNYY 1984 Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic 31/08/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - overcrowding (0.3 sq. m per person), no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air during transportation between 19/12/2020 and 21/12/2020;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   49023/20 16/10/2020 Denis Aleksandrovich OLESHKEVICH 1982 Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 11/06/2020;   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Video link from IK-8, Komi Republic 21/08/2020;   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Video link from IK-8, Komi Republic 20/09/2021;   Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic Video link from IK-8, Komi Republic 21/09/2021 Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-8 Komi Republic (12/03/2020 – pending on the date when the applicant was lodged with the Court) - opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance 7,500   49222/20 13/11/2020 Aleksandr Vasilyevich SMETANNIKOV 1985 Inta Town Court of the Komi Republic 08/10/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, 21/11/2019 ‑ 24/10/2020, 0.33-0.5 sq. m per inmate. Specific grievances - insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of requisite medical assistance, transport for 6 hours, applicant transported on numerous occasions;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   49871/20 25/09/2020 Denis Sergeyevich SERZHANIN 1982 Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd; on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court     4,750   51833/20 28/10/2020 Vladimir Alekseyevich KOPTEV 1989 Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd; on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   53064/20 13/11/2020 Galina Ivanovna IVANOVA 1962 Tsentralniy District Court of Tyumen 07/04/2020   7,500   53320/20 05/11/2020 Vladimir Vladimirovich KHELIKOV 1985   Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KHELIKOV 1992 both applicants complain about their placement in a metal cage during hearings before the Adlerskiy District Court of Sochi, and during hearings before the Krasnodar Regional Court by way of videoconference from a detention facility 02/06/2020   7,500,   to each of the applicants   53336/20 09/11/2020 Polina Olegovna YERMILOVA 2000 Traktorozavodskiy and Tsentralnyy District Courts of the Volgograd Region, Volgograd Town Court 08/09/2020   7,500   53886/20 16/11/2020 Vitaliy Vladimirovich NADUTKIN 1982 Udorskiy District Court of Koslan, Syktyvkar Town Court, Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar of the Komi Republic 25/09/2020   7,500   55381/20 30/11/2020 Vladimir Dmitriyevich ANDREYEV 1954 Tula Regional Court 06/08/2020   7,500   254/21 20/11/2020 Stanislav Yevgenyevich MALOV 1985 Supreme Court of Russia Video link from SIZO-1, Kazan, Tatarstan 16/06/2020   7,500   1936/21 01/12/2020 Marufzhon Makhammadaliyevich ISOMIDDINOV 1980 Usinsk Town Court of the Komi Republic 21/10/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train; from 15/08/2019 until 15/02/2021; 0.4 sq. m per person. Applicant transported on numerous occasions, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, passive smoking, lack or insufficient quantity of food, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet 8,500   2303/21 25/11/2020 Aleksey Alekseyevich VDOVIN 2000 Naberezhnye Chelny Town Court, Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan; 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 - transported on numerous occasions: between Naberezhnye Chelny and Chistopol (160   km) between 15/02/2019 and 17/07/2020; between Naberezhnye Chelny and Kazan (240   km), 0.2 sq. m of personal space;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   2711/21 14/12/2020 Nikolay Aleksandrovich TOMOV 1996 Ust-Kulomskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 13/10/2020   7,500   6375/21 15/12/2020 Sergey Grigoryevich DANILICHEV 1976 Volgograd Regional Court 14/12/2020   Volzhskiy Town Court of Volgograd Region 27/08/2021   7,500   9033/21 01/01/2021 Vladimir Yevgenyevich KONSTANTINOV 1983 Koryazhma Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 02/10/2020   7,500   14406/21 04/02/2021 Sergey Yevgenyevich KOPYTOV 1991 Petrovsk-Zabaykalskiy Town Court of the Zabaykalsk Region 25/08/2020   7,500   14408/21 01/02/2021 Yuriy Sergeyevich BAZHUTOV 1985 Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/01/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention from 02/12/2020 to 06/07/2021 ordered by the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Krasnoyarsk, the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; the applicant was charged with robbery 8,200   15188/21 18/02/2021 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich SERGIYEVSKIY 1988 Justice of the Peace of Tentyukovskiy Judicial Circuit of Syktyvkar; Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Komi Republic (from the detention facility being placed in a metal cage and by way of video conference) 18/02/2021   7,500   18012/21 12/03/2021 Maksim Nikolayevich PERUNOV 1985 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita 07/12/2020   7,500   18486/21 18/03/2021 Sergey Viktorovich YEGOROV 1976 Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St   Petersburg 19/01/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 11/12/2019 – 10/08/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court. Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on numerous occasions (at least 28   times) the applicant was transported from the remand prison to the courthouse and back in inhumane conditions (29/07/2020-10/08/2021); on the days of transfers the applicant spent about 4 hours in the assembly cell at the remand prison; the cell measured 18 sq. m and held 20 inmates having seating capacity for 12 persons; transfers lasted about 2 hours; in the van the applicant was placed in a compartment measuring 10 sq. m with 15 to 18 inmates; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, passive smoking 8,100   19931/21 10/03/2021 Aleksey Pavlovich PESHCHEREV 1975 Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk; Novosibirsk Regional Court 11/11/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van: transport from the remand prison to the courthouse and back; each trip lasted 1.5 hours, the applicant was held in the compartment housing 12   to 16 inmates; train: transport from the remand prison to the correctional colony, from 12/12/2020 to 13/12/2020 (the trip lasted 4   hours), the applicant was held in a compartment with 8 other inmates; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet     8,500   21459/21 29/03/2021 Mikhail Viktorovich GOROZHANKIN 1979 Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 13/10/2020 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance;   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-2 Komi Republic, 08/04/2020 - 31/03/2021 - opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room 7,500   22671/21 20/03/2021 Bogdan Aleksandrovich PONOMAREV 1982 Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 08/12/2020   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 02/03/2021   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 26/03/2021   Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 12/04/2021   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 06/05/2021   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 13/05/2021     7,500   23079/21 05/04/2021 Pavel Yevgenyevich OSTROVSKIY 1995 Ussuriyskiy District Court of the Primorye Region, Solikamsk Town Court of the Perm Region video link from SIZO-3, Ussuriysk, Primorye Region 28/01/2021   3,750   25320/21 04/10/2021 Maksim Anatolyevich PLASHIKHIN 1990 Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar 07/06/2021 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, train; from 12/06/2021 to 02/07/2021, from 11/09/2021 to 13/09/2021 and from 15/10/2021 to 17/10/2021. Specific grievances: overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to toilet. Van, train, from 11/09/2021 to 13/09/2021 and 15/10/2021 to 17/10/2021 8,500   26368/21 20/04/2021 Vladimir Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV 1999 Ukhta Town Court, 20/10/2020; Syktyvkar Town Court, 14/01/2021; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, 04/03/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of transport for 9   hours on 11/03/2021: insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of privacy for toilet, lack or inadequate furniture, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water; 1 sq. m per person 8,500   27583/21 04/05/2021 Vasiliy Petrovich BOROVTSOV 1975 Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region, Volgograd Regional Court 01/04/2021   7,500   29704/21 04/05/2021 Aleksandr Vladislavovich BOGDANOV 1977 Vorkuta Town Court 16/03/2021 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 - from 29/10/2021 to 31/10/2021, train, 0.2 sq. m per person overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to potable water The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.   32074/21 09/03/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DILSHNAYDER 1981 Sverdlovsk Regional Court, Ivdel Town Court of Sverdlovsk Region (by way of videoconference from the detention facility) 12/02/2021   Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 22/11/2021   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.   32317/21 27/03/2021 Anton Olegovich BELYAYEV 1992 Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court 01/12/2021 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 - from 16/08/2019 to 01/12/2020, numerous and regular transfers by van between the detention facilities and the courthouse pending the criminal proceedings: 0,25 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease 8,500   32847/21 09/06/2021 Artem Vasilyevich SHISHKIN 1990 Oktyabrsky District Court of Kirov on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   7,500   35012/21 13/10/2021 Pavel Anatolyevich ZHELEZNOV 1985 Sysolskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 07/09/2021   Justice of the Peace of the Lesozavodskiy Judicial Circuit of Syktyvkar 10/06/2022   7,500   37631/21 05/07/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BARUZDIN 1991 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma 11/02/2021   Kostroma Regional Court 01/07/2021   7,500   37680/21 30/06/2021 Andrey Aleksandrovich KUCHIN 1991 Koryazhma Town Court 12/04/2021   7,500   41704/21 23/07/2021 Uralbay Urazbayevich MAMBETOV 1997 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov, Leninskiy District Court of Tambov on-going placement in a cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group, 16/11/2020-pending as of 16/09/2022, Tambov Regional Court, First Appellate Court, latest extension - 01/04/2022, upheld on appeal on 20/04/2022 9,750   42328/21 27/12/2021 Omak Grigoryevich KHERTEK 1991 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 04/03/2020 to 22/09/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention 8,700     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.