FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GORBENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 8461/20 and 43 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 March 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gorbenko and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 February 2024,
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.
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 in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. 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 VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded 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 and/or administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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. 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 before the court during the criminal proceedings against them and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. 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-LAW12. 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.
13. 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; 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; and Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 5 others, §§ 139-145, 17 January 2012, regarding inappropriate interference with the right of individual petition.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. 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 that the finding of a violation in application no. 20357/21 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage before the court during their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings;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 during court hearings;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 20357/21;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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]
8461/20
28/01/2020
Aleksandr Vitalyevich GORBENKO
1991
Ust-Abakanskiy District Court of the Republic of Khakassia
10/01/2020
7,500
11463/21
03/02/2021
Aleksey Aleksandrovich YAGUBKIN
1984
Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
04/08/2020
7,500
12272/21
20/04/2021
Nikita Yuryevicha POPOV
1988
Khatangskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
06/11/2020
7,500
13335/21
10/02/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich BARANOV
1967
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court
22/09/2020
7,500
13582/21
03/02/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SUVOROV
1984
Petrodvortsoviy District Court of St Petersburg
04/08/2020
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transport in a van (0.2 sq. m of personal surface, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light) from 03/07/2020 to 04/08/2020;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
14688/21
23/02/2021
Grigoriy Ivanovich KORZHOV
1973
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court (video link)
23/10/2020
7,500
15163/21
09/02/2021
Nikolay Sergeyevich LOBKOV
1995
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
27/01/2021
7,500
15170/21
03/02/2021
Mikhail Sergeyevich SARIYEV
1988
Chernovskiy District Court of Chita
02/02/2021
7,500
15171/21
04/02/2021
Maksim Yuryevich KLIMOV
1987
Chernovskiy District Court of Chita
30/11/2020
7,500
15186/21
18/02/2021
Aleksandr Yevgenyevich BELASH
1992
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
21/01/2021
7,500
15247/21
17/09/2021
David Aleksandrovich KYACHEV
1976
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
19/07/2021
7,500
15611/21
24/02/2021
Aleksandr Igorevich TELEGIN
1986
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
15659/21
18/02/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KOPYLOV
1987
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
19/08/2020
7,500
15669/21
24/02/2021
Aleksey Nikolayevich PODYACHEV
1977
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region (video link)
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
15695/21
01/03/2021
Ramin Magamed ogly ALIYEV
1978
Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court (video link)
01/10/2020
7,500
15782/21
01/03/2021
Vladimir Aleksandrovich MURASHKIN
1985
Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court (video link)
01/10/2020
7,500
15846/21
04/03/2021
Vladimir Igorevich NOVIK
1988
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
15849/21
08/02/2021
Marina Vladimirovna MIKHAYLOVA
1992
Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Republic of Mariy El
11/11/2020
7,500
16055/21
25/02/2021
Zubaydullo Sharifovich REZMONOV
1981
Tsentalniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
16057/21
24/02/2021
Nikolay Mikhaylovich KOZLOVSKIY
1983
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
18/02/2021
7,500
17061/21
10/03/2021
Aleksey Vasilyevich KUKLIN
1984
Ingodinskiy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court
30/11/2020
7,500
17370/21
10/03/2021
Viktor Stepanovich DOBRIOGLO
1971
Gorodishchenskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region, Volgograd Regional Court (video link)
15/12/2020
7,500
17399/21
02/03/2021
Nikita Nikolayevich BLINOV
1991
Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirovsk Region
12/01/2021
7,500
19610/21
16/06/2021
Igor Viktorovich BOCHKAREV
1986
Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
17/12/2020
7,500
19881/21
10/03/2021
Pavel Andreyevich FETISOV
1984
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
15/12/2020
7,500
20345/21
11/03/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich KONSTANTINOV
1978
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
22/12/2020
7,500
20357/21
22/03/2021
Vadim Vladislavovich GORBULYA
1973
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg
01/10/2020
The finding of a violation
constitutes sufficient just
satisfaction
21048/21
31/03/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich PUSHKIN
1991
Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
21076/21
11/03/2021
Nikita Vladimirovich PANKRATOV
2000
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
28/01/2021
7,500
22549/21
18/08/2021
Kirill Yevgenyevich AVDEYEV
1982
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
11/06/2021
7,500
22636/21
07/04/2021
Denis Olegovich RENSKOV
1987
Moscow City Court
07/10/2020
7,500
22744/21
07/04/2021
Mikhail Vladimirovich KOROBEYNIKOV
1984
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
02/11/2020
7,500
22750/21
09/04/2021
Yevgeniy Vasilyevich PARNACHEV
1981
Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
21/10/2020
7,500
22838/21
29/03/2021
Yan Yuryevich KYDYYEV
1992
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
24279/21
26/08/2021
Omar Gazimagomedovich ISMAILOV
1978
Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - Permanent video surveillance in the solitary confinement cell (PKT) of IK-8 Komi Republic where the applicant was placed between 20/02/2021 and 24/11/2021
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
7,500
24422/21
14/09/2021
Pavel Aleksandrovich LEVIYAYNEN
1973
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
25324/21
11/03/2021
Grigoriy Vadimovich SEREBROV
1996
Inta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
16/11/2020
7,500
25363/21
30/04/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich SHLENCHAK
1983
Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk
11/11/2020
7,500
25565/21
24/08/2021
Stanislav Nikolayevich OVCHINNIKOV
1988
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
25627/21
18/06/2021
Anatoliy Vladimirovich TIKHONOV
1989
Sharypovo Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
09/03/2021
7,500
26105/21
05/05/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich LITVINOV
1975
Yurga Town Court of the Kemerovo Region, Kemerovo Regional Court
18/01/2021
Art. 34 - hindrance in the exercise of the right of individual petition
- The application form is signed by the applicant’s wife. The colony’s administration (IK-41 Kemerovo Region) does not allow him to send correspondence, copy the documents, and threatens him with a punishment cell
7,500
27901/21
22/04/2021
Andrey Valeryevich YEMELYASHIN
1972
Uyar Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the
Court)
7,500
28284/21
06/07/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GORNOV
1986
First Appellate Court (video link)
27/01/2021
7,500
28341/21
29/03/2021
Ivan Viktorovich GOLOSHCHAPOV
1994
Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg
24/03/2021
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.