CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 10 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 73743/14 Dmitriy Nikolayevich RYNDIN against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Russian nationals. The applicants in the first and second cases are represented before the Court by Mr A. Kiryanov, a lawyer practising in Taganrog. The applicant in the third case is represented by Ms   Ye. Kiryanova, a lawyer who also practises in Taganrog. A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 15 April, 24 April and 25 February 2014 respectively the applicants in the first, second and third cases were arrested on suspicion of theft. On 17 April, 25 April and 27 February 2014 respectively the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded the applicants in custody. The applicants’ detention pending the outcome of the investigation was subsequently extended by the Town Court on several occasions. On 20 February 2015 the criminal case against the applicants was submitted to the Town Court for trial. On 18 August and 19 November 2015 the Town Court extended the applicants’ detention pending trial until 20   November 2015 and 20 February 2016 respectively. In the courtroom where the applicants’ proceedings before the Town Court were heard the applicants were confined to a metal cage, which made them feel humiliated in the eyes of their family, friends and the general public. The position of the cage rendered the applicants’ communication with their lawyers very difficult: they could not communicate orally without being heard and any exchange of documents between them was only possible after the documents had been presented to and read by the judge and the court ushers. On 4 September and 1 December 2015 respectively the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decisions of 18   August and 19   November 2015 on appeal. On 11 February 2016 the Town Court convicted the applicants of large ‑ scale theft committed in an organised group and sentenced them to two years and one month’s imprisonment followed by one year’s limitation of liberty. The appeal proceedings are currently pending. On 13 May, 24 May and 23 April 2016 respectively the applicants in the first, second and third cases were released after serving their sentences. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice, relevant international materials and practice For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice regarding confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom before a trial court see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia ([GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). For a summary of relevant domestic law regarding detention matters see Isayev v. Russia (no.   20756/04, §§ 67-79, 22 October 2009). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Town Court was humiliating. 2.     They further complain, under Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, that their placement in the metal cage rendered the criminal proceedings against them unfair as the security arrangements in question prevented free and confidential communication with their lawyers. 3.     Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that their detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient grounds.   QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , (nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cage used to confine the applicants.   2.     Did the applicants’ confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded an opportunity to enjoy effective legal assistance in the courtroom, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Were the applicants able to have confidential exchanges with their lawyers, both oral and written, during the hearing (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   642-48, 25   July 2013)?   3.     Was the applicants’ detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and was it compatible with the requirements of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   139-49, 22   May 2012, and Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §   108-11, 27   November 2012)?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by   73743/14 13/11/2014 Dmitriy Nikolayevich RYNDIN 21/06/1975 Taganrog   Aleksandr Vladimirovich KIRYANOV   74597/14 13/11/2014 Aleksandr Vladimirovich MOROZOV 21/08/1977 Taganrog   Aleksandr Vladimirovich KIRYANOV   74847/14 13/11/2014 Anatoliy Gennadyevich SEMILUTSKIY 24/01/1961 Taganrog   Yekaterina Vasilyevna KIRYANOVA