CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s3B53EBD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s87D0C75D { 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; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sC2958733 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s94117A4F { 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; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .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 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 73011/14 Andrey Nyaimovich SYAFUKOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. They complain, in particular, under Article 6   §§   1 and 3 of the Convention about the impact their confinement in metal cages or protective glass cabins before the courts during the criminal proceedings against them had on the fairness of those proceedings, namely, their right to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance. The applicants outline the following issues: (a)     absence of a desk or another flat surface for reading documents or taking notes, (b)     poor audibility inside glass cabins, (c)     impossibility to have confidential exchange with counsel (convoy officers and bailiffs within earshot throughout the trial and during court breaks). The applicants raised the above issues before appellate courts, but to no avail. The individual circumstances and complaints of each applicant are summarised in the appendix below. The applicants in applications nos. 5903/15, 67503/17 and 35275/19 also raised other complaints, subject of well-established case-law of the Court, which are summarised in the appendix below.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to each applicant’s specific allegations, did he have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and/or (c) of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Taking into account the conditions in which each of the applicants was held during the trial (metal cage or glass cabin):   (i)     Was he afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Was he provided with sufficient space? Was he provided with a desk or equivalent facilities to peruse documents and to take notes (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §§   151-53, 4   October 2016)?   (ii)     Was the applicant able to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Did the acoustics inside the glass cabin allow the applicant to follow the course of the trial and participate effectively in the proceedings? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with counsel? Was the applicant able to confer privately with counsel during the trial (see Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§   151-53, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v.   Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   642-48, 25 July 2013)?   (b)     In the cases of Mr Syafukov and Mr Makovchuk, were the applicants afforded an opportunity to confer privately with their counsel in the remand prison during the preparation of the trial? What were the arrangements for the applicants’ consultations with their counsel at the remand prison?   (c)     In Mr Suldin’s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to study the case file at the stage of the preparation of his appeal?   (d)     In Mr Boychenko’s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to confer privately with his lawyer before the appeal hearing of his criminal case?   2.     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 No. Application No. Applicant name, date of birth, place of residence Date of introduction   Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial under Article   6 of the Convention Other complaints under the well-established case-law     73011/14   Andrey Nyaimovich SYAFUKOV 06/05/1977 Saransk   07/11/2014     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)   (judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)         74193/14   Vyacheslav Vladimirovich MAKOVCHUK 15/09/1975 Uyar   05/11/2014   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)   (judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)         5903/15   Dmitriy Alekseyevich CHEBOTAREV 28/01/1984 Kopeysk   09/12/2014     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage   (judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi of 23/06/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10/07/15)     Articles 3, 6 § 2: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial   7265/16   Sergey Nikolayevich TOROPOV 14/03/1955 Kokhma   17/12/2015     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): the glass cabin where the applicant was confined throughout the trial muffled the sound of the words spoken in the courtroom and prevented the applicant, suffering from chronic hearing impairment, from effectively participating in the proceedings   (judgment of the Ivanovo Regional Court of 21/10/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 19/05/15, copy of the appeal decision received by the applicant on 14/07/15 , court stamp)             No. Application No. Applicant name, date of birth, place of residence Date of introduction   Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial under Article   6 of the Convention Other complaints under the well-established case-law     67503/17   Islam Saydaliyevich TASHUYEV 07/08/1985 Zelenyy   04/09/2017     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b): lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes during the trial due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage   (judgment of the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow of 02/12/16, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/17)     Articles 3 and 13: conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO-5 in Moscow (28/06/16 – 25/03/17, 1,6 m² per inmate, lack of sleeping places, poor sanitary conditions, poor ventilation, poor heating and cooling systems)   Articles 3 and 13 : conditions of transport between SIZO-5 and correctional colony IK-8 in the Tambov Region (railway, 25   March 2017)                               48780/18   Oleg Gennadyevich ANTONOV 17/08/1971 Moscow   29/09/2018   Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin   (judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)         28069/19   Vladimir Aleksandrovich SULDIN 11/10/1976 Simferopol   14/05/2019     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin; denial of the right to study the case file for the preparation of the appeal   (judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)                     No. Application No. Applicant name, date of birth, place of residence Date of introduction   Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial under Article   6 of the Convention Other complaints under the well-established case-law     32506/19   Vitaliy Afanasyevich KUTSAR 10/06/1974 Moscow   14/05/2019     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin   (judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/18)                   35275/19   Vitaliy Olegovich BOYCHENKO 03/06/1993 Kherson   03/06/2019     Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of and the scarce space inside the metal cage (5 co-defendants held in the cage measuring 1,05   m²), lack of possibility to have confidential exchange with counsel at the appeal stage   (judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan of 13/11/18, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/19)     Article 3: conditions of transport between the remand prison SIZO-1 of the Republic of Tatarstan and the courthouse (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)   Article 3 : conditions of confinement at the convoy premises of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)   Articles 3 : holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial and preparation of the appeal (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)