CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEA321EE2 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sE8D23146 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s60F10776 { height:54.1pt } .s5FFF0A73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:5pt } .s39650776 { height:58.1pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 29 November 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57636/16 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DILSHNAYDER against Russia and 15 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the application of handcuffs to life prisoners. The applicants were convicted of different crimes. Since conviction they serve their sentences in special regime prisons for lifers and they have to wear handcuffs every time they leave their cells allegedly without any legal ground (see Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20 January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151 63, 15 May 2012). Some of the applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012), detention in a cage during court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 84-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), marking their prison uniform with distinctive signs, using a guard dog when the applicant is outside his cell, video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII (extracts)), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and   61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), discrimination and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Questions on measures applied to life prisoners:   (a)     Did the systematic application of handcuffs to applicants in all cases, attaching a label “life prisoner” to their uniform (applications nos. 6643/17 and 66635/17), using a dog to guard the applicant outside the cell (application no. 35304/17), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 57636/16, 35304/17 and   35665/17), forced shaving (applications nos. 57636/16 and 29735/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR   2003 ‑ XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20   January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to application of these measures. Did the above measures apply automatically to all life prisoners? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants?   (b)     As regards the applications nos. 57636/16, 6643/17, 66635/17, 75764/17, 80441/17, 5896/18, no. 11305/18, 11785/18, 18993/18, 23615/18, 26363/18, 29678/18 and no. 29735/18, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention? The Government are invited to provide examples of domestic case-law relating to the above measures in respect of life prisoners to illustrate the practical effectiveness of the existing remedies, if any.   (c)     As regards applications nos. 57636/16 and 29735/18, did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on account of being handcuffed on the ground of their life prisoner status, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3?   2.     Conditions of detention and detention in cage:   (a)     As regards the applications nos. 57636/16, 6643/17, 35304/17, 66635/17, 80469/17, 5896/18, 11305/18, 11785/18, and 29678/18, were the conditions of the applicants’ detention in correctional colonies and remand prisons compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and   Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09, §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014)?   (b)     As regards the applications nos. 57636/16, 6643/17, 66635/17, 5896/18, 11305/18, 11785/18 and 29678/18, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin , cited above, §§ 36-45)?   (c)     As regards application no. 35304/17, was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtrooms (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)?   3.     Video surveillance in prison:   (a)     As regards the applications nos. 35665/17, 23615/18, 26363/18, 29735/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in correctional colonies and remand prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular: Was the interference “prescribed by law”? If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? In particular, could those aims have been achieved by using less intrusive means?   (b)     As regards the applications nos. 26363/18 and 29735/18, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint about video surveillance, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1 57636/16 Dilshnayder v. Russia 22/12/2016 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DILSHNAYDER 29/10/1981 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   2 6643/17 Tarasov v. Russia 05/01/2017 Petr Aleksandrovich TARASOV 30/10/1988 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian Tatyana Robertovna YESINA 3 35304/17 Roslov v. Russia 25/04/2017 Sergey Viktorovich ROSLOV 01/01/1967 Ognennyy, Vologda Region Russian Yelena Leonidovna KHARIONOVSKAIA 4 35665/17 Komolov v. Russia 29/09/2016 Vladislav Sergeyevich KOMOLOV 17/11/1981 Nizhnekamsk, Republic of Tatarstan Russian   5 66635/17 Podyachev v. Russia 17/08/2017 Aleksey Nikolayevich PODYACHEV 20/06/1977 Krasnoyarsk Russian   6 75764/17 Kayukov v. Russia 17/10/2017 Sergey Yuryevich KAYUKOV 30/01/1977 Kharp, Yamalo-Nenetsk Region Russian   7 80441/17 Piskunov v. Russia 27/10/2017 Sergey Aleksandrovich PISKUNOV 17/01/1981 Labytnangi, Yamalo-Nenetsk Region Russian   8 80469/17 Kamenev v. Russia 15/01/2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KAMENEV 13/02/1989 Chelyabinsk Russian   9 5896/18 Kyazimov v. Russia 23/03/2018 Ilgar Fakhradovich KYAZIMOV 04/05/1975 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   10 11305/18 Loyev and Others v. Russia 13/02/2018 Sergey Vyacheslavovich LOYEV 20/09/1972 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Sergey Mikhaylovich DAVYDOV 30/03/1965 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Ivan Vladimirovich KOROBITSYN 12/05/1985 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian   Andrey Vladimirovich LITVINTSEV 28/01/1971 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SINGAYEVSKIY 18/11/1975 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian   Alesandr Viktorovich GUTSUL 19/06/1973 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian   Dmitriy Vladimirovich GOLUBEV 08/12/1972 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian     Yuriy Gennadyevich BARKOVSKIY 27/12/1969 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian   Stepan Aleksandrovich KOMAROV 24/09/1989 Ivdel, Sverdlovsk Region Russian Lyudmila Viktorovna ROMANENKO 11 11785/18 Dudnikov and Others v. Russia 13/02/2018 Yuriy Pavlovich DUDNIKOV 14/11/1955 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Vladimir Viktorovich MENKOV 12/10/1982 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Mikhail Borisovich KONSTANTINOV 20/04/1984 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Anton Vasilyevich BOLSHESHAPOV 09/09/1985 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Arslan Faritovich SAYFUTDINOV 13/02/1986 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Sergey Borisovich KUTNYUK 31/05/1969 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian   Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BERESTNEV 01/01/1961 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian Lyudmila Viktorovna ROMANENKO 12 18993/18 Cherkasov v. Russia 04/04/2018 Pavel Sergeyevich CHERKASOV 14/12/1984 Elban Russian Tatyana Robertovna YESINA 13 23615/18 A.C. v. Russia 12/04/2018     14 26363/18 Zverev v. Russia 11/05/2018 Konstantin Savvovich ZVEREV 14/06/1980 Sol-Iletsk, Orenburg Region Russian Oksana Vladimirovna PREOBRAZHENSKAYA 15 29678/18 Podyachev v. Russia 06/04/2018 Aleksey Nikolayevich PODYACHEV 20/06/1977 Krasnoyarsk Russian   16 29735/18 Polichev v. Russia 06/06/2018 Andrey Valeryevich POLICHEV 29/01/1988 Elban, Khabarovsk Region Russian