CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 janvier 2020

.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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s24215D7A { height:24.75pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s86731D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A1F5D7A { height:22.75pt } .s4EF26575 { height:38.65pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA11BE78A { height:17.3pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sE3891F58 { width:62.1pt } .s41F150B8 { width:1.65pt } .sF0297B22 { width:324.4pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 10 January 2020 Published on 27 January 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7565/18 Sergey Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV against Russia and 5 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     The applicants are co-defendants in criminal proceedings. They were charged with conspiracy to commit murders and armed robberies operating as a criminal syndicate. 3.     On 9 June 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. 4 .     Throughout the trial, the applicants followed the proceedings from the inside of a glass dock ( «стеклянный шкаф» ). The glass dock had two or three sections, each of them equipped with a wooden bench. There was no desk or other flat surface for reading documents or taking notes. A two ‑ metre-high glass partition surrounding the dock muffled the sound of the words spoken in the courtroom and restricted circulation of air. The applicants could talk to their lawyers through a narrow slit hole. Their discussions were within earshot of convoy officers who were stationed around the glass dock. Convoy officers also reviewed the documents passed between the applicants and counsel. 5.     On 5 February 2018 the applicants were convicted on most charges and given custodial sentences. They appealed against the conviction. Some applicants raised the issue of poor conditions of detention and transport and restrictions on communication with lawyers in their statements of appeal. 6.     From 5 April to 18 July 2018 the applicants studied the trial record and documents in the case-file on the premises of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan. Documents were made available in two- to six-square metres glass docks in which the applicants were held. 7.     On 27 September 2018 prison officers took the applicants to a video ‑ conferencing room. They were put into a metal cage measuring 2.7   square metres. At about 10 a.m. they were afforded approximately twenty minutes to talk to their counsel by means of a video-link. A prison officer was present throughout the discussion and listened in. 8.     At 10.20 a.m. the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of Russia began, also by a video-link. The applicants complained to the Supreme Court judge about cramped conditions in the cage and the absence of any desk for taking notes. Judge S. replied that those matters “fell outside the [Supreme Court]’s jurisdiction”. Further appeal hearings were held from 10.20 a.m. to 11.20 a.m. on 23 October, from 10.20 a.m. to 11.20 a.m. on 1   November, from 10.20 a.m. to 4 p.m. from 13 to 16   November. The applicants remained in the metal cage throughout the appeal proceedings. 9.     On 16 November 2018 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. It rejected the applicants’ complaints of inadequate conditions of transport and detention and of restrictions on the preparation of their defence as being “not directly relevant to [the substance of] the final judicial act” (p. 26). COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicants’ complaints are set out in the Appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see Mariya Alekhina and   Others v. Russia , no. 38004/12, §§ 140-50, 17 July 2018), was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which the applicants were held – (a)     in a glass dock during the trial and preparation of the appeal? (b)     in a metal cage during the appeal hearing?   2.     Did the conditions in which the applicants were held during the trial and appeal hearings undermine the fairness requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Were the applicants afforded adequate facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Were the applicants provided with a desk or equivalent facilities to peruse documents and to take notes? (b)     Were the applicants able to defend themselves through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? What were the arrangements for the applicants’ consultations with counsel? Were the applicants able to confer privately with counsel during the trial or appeal hearings (compare Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   741-44, 25 July 2013)?   3.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the reviewing of notes passed between the applicants and their counsel by the convoy officers (see Laurent v. France , no. 28798/13, 24 May 2018)?   4.     The Government may, if they so wish, submit comments on the other complaints raised by the applicants which are the subject of the Court’s well-established case-law.     APPENDIX Date of the application form Summary of the complaint Sergey Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV Born on 28/04/1990. Application no. 7565/18 06/01/2018 Article 5 § 3: detained on remand since 23/01/2015 without sufficient reasons. 06/01/2018 12/04/2018 Article 5 § 4: The Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan failed to examine speedily the applicant’s appeals against the detention orders of 05/06/2017 (upheld on appeal on 07/07/2017), 05/09/2017 (upheld on appeal on 17/10/2017), and 07/12/2017 (upheld on appeal on 23/01/2018). Andrey Sergeyevich MOROZOV Born on 06/08/1976. Application no. 47148/18 13/09/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of transport between the remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal (10/06/2016-31/07/2018). 13/09/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of detention in holding cells in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal. 13/09/2018 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 8: holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial, restrictions on discussions with counsel, and review of notes (see the Facts for more details). 20/02/2019 Articles 3, 6 §§ 1 and 3: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the appeal hearing and restrictions on conferring with counsel (see the Facts for more details). Aleksey Aleksandrovich TARASOV Born on 16/12/1973. Application no. 51636/18. 15/10/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of transport between the remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal (10/06/2016-31/07/2018). 15/10/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of detention in holding cells in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal 15/10/2018 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 8: holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial, restrictions on discussions with counsel, and review of notes (see the Facts for more details). 17/04/2019 Articles 3, 6 §§ 1 and 3: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the appeal hearing and restrictions on conferring with counsel (see the Facts for more details). Albert Petrovich KOSHKIN Born on 18/08/1967. Application no. 1455/19. Represented by Ms N. Dushina, an advocate in Kazan. 18/12/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of transport between the remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal (10/06/2016-31/07/2018). 18/12/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of detention in holding cells in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal. 18/12/2018 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 8: holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial, restrictions on discussions with counsel, and review of notes (see the Facts for more details). 18/12/2018 Articles 3, 6 §§ 1 and 3: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the appeal hearing and restrictions on conferring with counsel (see the Facts for more details). Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV Born on 17/09/1968. Application no. 1825/19 28/12/2018 (post stamp) Article 3: inhuman conditions of transport between the remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal (10/06/2016-31/07/2018). 28/12/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of detention in holding cells in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal. 28/12/2018 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 8: holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial, restrictions on discussions with counsel, and review of notes (see the Facts for more details). Aleksandr Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV Born on 07/05/1987. Application no. 5279/19. 28/12/2018 (post stamp) Article 3: inhuman conditions of transport between the remand prison and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal (10/06/2016-31/07/2018). 28/12/2018 Article 3: inhuman conditions of detention in holding cells in the Supreme Court of Tatarstan during the trial and preparation of the appeal. 28/12/2018 Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 8: holding the applicant in a glass dock throughout the trial, restrictions on discussions with counsel, and review of notes (see the Facts for more details).