FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF GRISHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 44437/21 and 30 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grishin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 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.
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 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 in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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-LAW
12. 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; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; and Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. 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.
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
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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]
44437/21
30/08/2021
Nikita Nikolayevich GRISHIN
1989
Zheleznodorozhniy and Sverdlovskiy District Courts of Krasnoyarsk
19/04/2021
7,500
46219/21
30/08/2021
Dmitriy Nikolayevich SOLOVYEV
1998
Semenov Ilya Aleksandrovich
Vologda
Vologda Regional Court
22/04/2021
7,500
46407/21
19/08/2021
Sergey Mikhaylovich SUKHOV
1976
Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Solombalskiy District of Arkhangelsk, Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Primorskiy District of the Arkhangelsk Region
07/05/2021, 09/07/2021
7,500
46550/21
23/08/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich VIKTOROV
1977
Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court
(pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
46613/21
01/08/2021
Yevgeniy Yuryevich LOGINOV
1981
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
17/05/2021
7,500
47217/21
20/12/2021
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich SMIRNOV
1979
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
30/07/2021
7,500
52087/21
27/09/2021
Yuliya Anatolyevna LUTAY
1978
Podolsk Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court
06/04/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train/van, 11/06/2020 to 06/08/2021, 0.25 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
52595/21
22/11/2021
Gennadiy Nikolayevich ZVEREV
1993
Divnogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
(pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
52604/21
24/09/2021
Vyacheslav Borisovich PODKORYTOV
1972
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Justice of the Peace of the Timanskiy Judicial Circuit of Ukhta, the Republic of Komi
13/05/2021
7,500
52865/21
04/10/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich GORYAYEV
1988
Lyambirskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia
10/06/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, 31/01/2020-27/08/2021, transportation in a single-prisoner cubicle measuring 0.3 sq. m, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural and electric light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding
8,500
53106/21
27/09/2021
Aleksandr Valeryevich DAVYDOV
1986
Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
05/07/2021
7,500
53108/21
06/10/2021
Pavel Aleksandrovich SKOBELEV
1991
Medvedevskiy District Court of the Republic of Mariy El, Supreme Court of the Republic of Mariy El
21/04/2021
7,500
53109/21
11/10/2021
Mstislav Mikhaylovich PETROV
1989
Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
02/06/2021
7,500
53311/21
04/10/2021
Valeriy Vakhtangovich KAN-SA-UNI
1979
Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg
19/08/2021
7,500
55138/21
30/09/2021
Mirza BOLKVADZE
1983
Perevozchikov Andrey Vladimirovich
Yaroslavl
Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl
29/09/2021
7,500
56037/21
15/11/2021
Mikhail Nikolayevich TERESHCHENKOV
1986
Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich
St Petersburg
Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
09/11/2021
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention since March 2021 and ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The appeal of 19/04/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18/05/2021; the appeal of 21/05/2021 against the detention order was examined on 22/06/2021; the appeal of 26/06/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18/08/2021; the appeal of 20/08/2021 against the detention order was examined on 20/09/2021; the appeal of 09/10/2021 against the detention order was examined on 09/11/2021; the appeal of 24/09/2021 against the detention order was examined on 11/11/2021.
9,750
56111/21
19/10/2021
Maksim Vyacheslavovich MANAKOV
1997
Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk
09/06/2021
7,500
56726/21
15/10/2021
Andrey Aleksandrovich MELNIKOV
1980
Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar, Syktyvkar Town Court
15/06/2021
7,500
56810/21
27/10/2021
Sergey Vladimirovich MOZHEGOV
1981
Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
18/06/2021
7,500
58290/21
21/11/2021
Aleksey Gennadyevich BRECHKO
1982
Nazarov Ilya Yuryevich
Moscow
Shchelkovo Town Court of the Moscow Region
21/05/2021
7,500
58392/21
05/10/2021
Rasul ISKANDARZOD
1992
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
58405/21
05/11/2021
Dmitriy Yuryevich ARTEMYEV
1993
Kozlovskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
15/07/2021
7,500
6147/22
30/05/2022
Aleksandr Vladimirovich BORODKIN
1990
Ezhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar
10/02/2022
7,500
6766/22
25/04/2022
Yuriy Nikolayevich UGRYUMOV
1973
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
6770/22
17/01/2021
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich SHMAKOV
1988
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
6933/22
30/12/2021
Aleksandr Vadimovich SIVKOV
1982
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi
17/09/2021
7,500
6945/22
31/12/2021
Vyacheslav Grigoryevich IGOSHIN
1993
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
23/08/2021
7,500
7478/22
18/01/2022
Mikhail Yuryevich PERCHENYUK
1978
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg
20/12/2021
7,500
9797/22
21/03/2022
Vadim Nikolayevich BUTANAYEV
1992
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
11/01/2022
7,500
10542/22
16/02/2022
Anton Vladimirovich BEZBORODOV
1986
Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
19/10/2021
7,500
39234/22
04/07/2022
Maksim Vladimirovich PLASHCHEV
1980
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
13/04/2022
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy