CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 juin 2017

.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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 27 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 36198/16 Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ continued detention on remand allegedly in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and their confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them allegedly in breach of Articles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. Applications nos. 40617/16 and 42050/16 further raise an issue of availability to the applicants of effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Articles   3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court and the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , (nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos.   59655/14 and 2 others, §   31, 31   January 2017)?   The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cages used to confine the applicants.   2.     Did the applicants’ confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court and the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 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 hearings (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   642-48, 25   July 2013; Urazov v. Russia , no.   42147/05, §§   85-90, 14   June 2016; and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §   147, 4   October 2016)?   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 Zherebin v. Russia , no. 51445/09, §§   45-63, 24   March 2016)?   The parties are invited to provide copies of all relevant documents. CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Applications nos. 40617/16 and 42050/16 1.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   3 of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, §   87, and Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §   113)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §   141)? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   36198/16 08/06/2016 Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV 23/07/1968 Taganrog                 Aleksandr Vladimirovich KIRYANOV   40617/16 23/06/2016 Artem Aleksandrovich KORYUNOV 11/01/1990 Taganrog     42050/16 12/07/2016 Roman Nikolayevich MAKAROV 11/04/1973 Taganrog