CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 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 } .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 } .sFA49E884 { height:87.25pt } .sD34F4627 { height:65.5pt } .s84266CC2 { height:54pt } .s19980776 { height:59.9pt } Communicated on 30 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2634/17 Ivan Aleksandrovich MOROZOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The cases concern the application of handcuffs to prisoners in prisons and during their transfers. The applicants were convicted of different crimes. Some of the applicants serve their sentences in special 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). The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5   others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no.   39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§   58 ‑ 100, 2 July 2019), 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)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Questions on prison regime:   (a)     Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their transportation (applications nos.   6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), 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. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), forced shaving (applications nos.   71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), 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))? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants? 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. What were the legal grounds for attaching the applicants to a wire rope together with several other prisoners during their transfer (applications nos.   34068/19 and 38336/19)? In case of life prisoners, did the above measures apply automatically to all life prisoners?   (b)     As regards the applications nos. 78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, 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.   2.     Conditions of detention and transport and detention in cage:   (a)     As regards the applications nos. 2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants’ detention and transport 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; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9   April 2019)?   (b)     As regards the applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, 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 the applications nos. 2634/17 and 15943/19, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their 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:   As regards the applications nos. 2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in 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?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1 2634/17 Morozov v. Russia 13/12/2016 Ivan Aleksandrovich MOROZOV 27/02/1984 Kharp Russian 2 71295/17 Chudinov v. Russia 04/09/2017 Eduard Vladimirovich CHUDINOV 31/01/1969 Elban Russian 3 78210/17 Kalinin v. Russia 10/10/2017 Roman Sergeyevich KALININ 05/07/1984 Chita Russian 4 79064/17 Ibragimov v. Russia 08/11/2017 Umrbek Durdiyevich IBRAGIMOV 08/05/1992 Elban Ouzbekistan 5 6725/18 Ivanov v. Russia 09/01/2018 Aleksey Yevgenyevich IVANOV 04/03/1976 Elban Russian 6 15031/18 Resin v. Russia 09/03/2018 Andrey Igorevich RESIN 29/07/1974 Khabarovsk Russian 7 15294/18 Tikhomirov v. Russia 03/03/2018 Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV 26/07/1986 Elban Russian 8 21401/18 Shatalov v. Russia 09/04/2018 Aleksey Sergeyevich SHATALOV 18/03/1983 Elban Russian 9 29086/18 Semin v. Russia 06/06/2018 Dmitriy Borisovich SEMIN 27/11/1970 Elban Russian 10 40436/18 Kuchmenov v. Russia 06/08/2018 Aslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV 19/02/1980 Elban Russian 11 44351/18 Rudykh and Semin v. Russia 30/08/2018 Vladimir Anatolyevich RUDYKH 01/10/1970 Elban Russian   Dmitriy Borisovich SEMIN 27/11/1970 Elban Russian 12 15943/19 Shakhnova v. Russia 21/02/2019 Yuliya Gennadyevna SHAKHNOVA 11/07/1972 Moscow Russian 13 30453/19 Shashkov v. Russia 07/05/2019 Roman Mikhaylovich SHASHKOV 26/07/1963 Solikamsk Russian 14 34068/19 Skibenko v. Russia 17/06/2019 Aleksey Gennadyevich SKIBENKO 23/04/1978 Aleksandriyskaya Russian 15 38336/19 Lunev v. Russia 02/07/2019 Vladislav Vitalyevich LUNEV 26/08/1981 Stavropol Russian