THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BURKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 13567/13 and 41 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Burkov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. In application no. 35275/19 the Ukrainian Government exercised their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of the Court and submitted written comments, supporting the applicant’s claims.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.Jurisdiction
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
Some applicants also complained that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.
8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018).
9. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
12. Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
13. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.
14. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§ 145-53, and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 85-90, 14 June 2016, concerning the impact of the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage or a glass cabin on the exercise of their rights to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance; Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 150-59, 18 December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect (see appended table).REMAINING COMPLAINT
15. In application no. 5903/15 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
16. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 5903/15 and 35275/19.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and/or glass cabins in courtrooms and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no. 5903/15 inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage and/or glass cabin during court hearings;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 5903/15 and 35275/19.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
13567/13
16/02/2013
Vasiliy Vladimirovich BURKOV
1972
Kurgan Town Court, Kurgan Regional Court
24/02/2015
Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - Charges of fraud, intentional bankruptcy and money laundering.
The applicant was held in detention during two periods: from 05/09/2011 to 20/12/2012 and from 16/07/2014 to 24/02/2015. In between he was released on bail.
Specific defects: fragility of the reasons used by the courts to extend the applicant’s detention; failure to examine alternative measures to detention; lack of due diligence on the part of the domestic courts.
9,750
5903/15
09/12/2014
Dmitriy Alekseyevich CHEBOTAREV
1984
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
23/06/2014
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the lack of a possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial and 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 23/06/2014, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10/07/2015)
9,750
35275/19
03/06/2019
Vitaliy Olegovich BOYCHENKO
1993
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, placement in a metal cage during the trial and preparation to the appeal at least until 13/03/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Conditions of transport between the remand prison SIZO-1 of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, conditions of detention in the convoy cells on the premises of the Sovetskiy District Court between 14/05/2018 and 13/03/2019;
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (b) – unfair criminal proceedings in view the lack of adequate time/facilities for preparation of defence - Lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of and the scarce space inside the metal cage in the courtroom (5 co-defendants held in the cage measuring 1.05 m²), judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan of 13/11/2018, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/19;
Article 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the violation of the applicant’s right to legal assistance - Lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial and at the appeal stage, judgment of the Sovetskiy Disrict Court of Kazan of 13/11/2018, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/2019
9,000,
in non-pecuniary damage,
and
500
in costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the lawyer, Ms Ye. Yefremova
9352/21
17/05/2021
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich PETUKHOV
1988
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
17/11/2020
7,500
13036/21
25/01/2021
Maksim Vladislavovich POLSKIY
1992
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
12/11/2020
7,500
14407/21
01/02/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich SVETTSOV
1979
Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Dovolenskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region, Dovolenskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region
26/08/2020
7,500
14426/21
15/02/2021
Ilya Olegovich SAFRONOV
1986
Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court
since 06/01/2021 and pending at least until the application was lodged with the Court
7,500
19458/21
20/08/2021
Dmitriy Sergeyevich SEMENOV
1988
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
05/03/2021
7,500
22929/21
12/04/2021
Svyatoslav Leonidovich GREKHOV
1990
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
10/02/2021
7,500
24421/21
06/05/2021
Abdul Vakhab Abazovich ISAYEV
1959
Anatoliy Viktorovich KURAGIN
1977
Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich
Abakan
Abakan Town Court (both applicants), Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia (both applicants), Eighth Cassation Court
(Mr Kuragin)
Since 04/06/2019 and until 17/11/2020
7,500
28516/21
19/04/2021
Ilya Aleksandrovich SHAKURSKIY
1996
Garoz Eldar Seifovich
Moscow
Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court, Appellate Military Court
20/10/2020
Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - anonymised witness "Kabanov" described the applicant as a terrorist, but the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to examine the witness in person in the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court. Requests by the defence were ignored. Use of the testimony of third persons who complained about ill-treatment and argued during the applicant’s trial that their pre-trial inculpating statements had been made under duress.
7,500
42906/21
15/12/2021
Aleksey Sergeyevich SALKOVSKIY
1979
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Berezovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
06/10/2021
7,500
43404/21
07/12/2021
Ivan Aleksandrovich KOKOVKIN
1985
Ramenskoye Town Court of the Moscow Region
13/07/2021
7,500
43953/21
16/08/2021
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich MELENTYEV
1977
Justice of the Peace of the Oktyabrskiy District of Syktyvkar
16/07/2021
7,500
44403/21
20/08/2021
Maksim Fernandovich BRUNO GARSIYA
1978
Zubovo-Polyanskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
24/05/2021
7,500
44404/21
23/08/2021
Pavel Aleksandrovich SITNIKOV
1977
Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
45366/21
24/08/2021
Alla Anatolyevna BORISOVA
1974
Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich
Volgograd
Voroshilovskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court
24/06/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - from IZ-1 Volgograd to IK-50 Krasnoyarsk Region between 11/08/2021 and 15/09/2021 (overcrowding, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water);
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
46064/21
30/07/2021
Dmitriy Viktorovich KROKHIN
1984
Usinsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi
25/05/2021
7,500
46216/21
30/07/2021
Vladimir Vitalyevich NIKIFOROV
1977
Slobodskoy Court Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District of Syktyvkar, Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar
25/02/2021
7,500
46506/21
23/08/2021
Maksim Aleksandrovich PETIN
1987
Dovolenskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, Novosibirsk Regional Court
31/05/2021
7,500
48355/21
06/09/2021
Maksim Ivanovich BYRKANOV
1995
Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi
16/04/2021
7,500
48356/21
14/09/2021
Aleksey Yevgenyevich SHEMYAKIN
1991
Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk
30/06/2021
7,500
49635/21
08/11/2021
Andrey Aleksandrovich BAKSHAYEV
1982
Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirov Region
13/10/2021
7,500
49689/21
08/11/2021
Mikhail Vladimirovich ANTONOV
1974
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
49940/21
21/02/2022
Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELYASHOV
1976
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
18/11/2021
7,500
50032/21
13/12/2021
Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KHARIN
1978
Justice of the Peace of the Vuktylskiy Court Circuit of the Republic of Komi, Vuktyl Town Court of the Republic of Komi
26/07/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, single occupancy, 0.5 sq. m of personal space, 7 trips, duration 4-5 hours, transport involved ferry crossing, during the
period between 26/04/2021 and 26/07/2021;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
50442/21
21/09/2021
Maksim Aleksandrovich VIDERGOLD
1981
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza, Penza Regional Court
23/11/2021
7,500
50563/21
22/09/2021
Afanasiy Aleksandrovich VASILYEV
1976
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
14/04/2021
7,500
51382/21
15/03/2022
Andrey Yuryevich YEFIMOV
1984
Starorusskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
52784/21
23/09/2021
Yevgeniy Andreyevich ABRAMENKO
1993
Tatarskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region
24/06/2021
7,500
56659/21
27/12/2021
Aleksandr Nikolayevich PONOMAREV
1978
Chitinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalsk Region
15/09/2021
7,500
60209/21
25/11/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich GORELOV
1981
Moscow City Court
27/05/2021
7,500
1094/22
19/11/2021
Sergey Valentinovich KHAYLOV
1986
Golubenko Andrey
Nea Skioni
The Second Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction
14/09/2021
7,500
9751/22
14/01/2022
Valeriy Anatolyevich POLOVINKIN
1961
Mamedov Sabir Akber Ogly
St Petersburg
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Vsevolozhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrand Regional Court
22/11/2021
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IVS Vsevolozhsk Town of the Leningrad Region (between 11/02/2021 and 22/12/2021);
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
7,500
9968/22
15/01/2022
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich ASEYEV
1984
Novokuybyshevsk Town Court of the Samara Region
18/11/2021
7,500
12147/22
24/01/2022
Bogdan Romanovich SPITSYN
1985
Priluzskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
20/10/2021
7,500
12702/22
03/02/2022
Vadim Nikolayevich YELKIN
1992
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Kirov, Leninskiy District Court of Kirov
15/12/2021
7,500
12703/22
12/01/2022
Vladimir Mikhaylovich BUMBU
1989
Onega Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region
21/12/2021
7,500
13786/22
10/02/2022
Yaroslav Nikolayevich POLIIT
1991
Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov
16/12/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 0.5 m x 0.8 m single-occupancy cubicle, lack of seat belts, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, during the period between 24/08/2021 and 16/12/2021
8,500
13868/22
18/02/2022
Konstantin Petrovich IVCHENKO
1970
Bityutskiy Andrey Albertovich
Khabarovsk
Pozharskiy District Court of the Primorye Region
09/02/2022
7,500
13971/22
02/02/2022
Eduard Yevgenyevich FILIPPOV
1978
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Sosnogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Komi
03/12/2021
7,500
13973/22
14/02/2022
Denis Vyacheslavovich PROKHOROV
1982
Bolotninskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region
19/11/2021
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy