SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56247/15 and 47 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kashuba and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 October 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 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, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
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, reading as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 cases 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. 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards the inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-87, 26 June 2018, as regards the unlawful deprivation of liberty; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre‑trial detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos. 66152/14 and 8 others, §§ 85-105, 20 April 2021, as regards the police entrapment in the context of investigating offences concerning illegal distribution of drugs; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities.REMAINING COMPLAINT
14. Lastly, the applicant in application no. 1798/17 raised a complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about his inability to obtain attendance and examination of defence witnesses.
15. 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 matters complained of are 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
16. 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.”
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.
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 Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and/or glass cabins in courtrooms, under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the use of those security arrangements in the courtrooms, 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. 1798/17 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 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 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their placement in a metal cage or glass cabin in a courtroom;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 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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]
56247/15
05/11/2015
Viktor Petrovich KASHUBA
1964
Ivannikov Vladimir Mikhaylovich
Kursk
Kursk Regional Court
(by video link from the remand prison where the applicant was placed in a cage)
13/05/2015
7,500
4707/16
28/12/2015
Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY
1966
Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich
Moscow
Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (By video link from SIZO-2 Moscow)
28/11/2017
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was arrested by the police at 8 a.m. on 03/06/2015. An arrest record was drawn up seventeen hours later, at
1 a.m. on 04/06/2015. The applicant unsuccessfully raised this complaint before the courts when the measure of restraint was examined
9,750
50477/16
22/08/2016
Mikhail Aleksandrovich LEONTYEV
1984
Romanchenko Lyudmila Ivanovna
Moscow
Supreme Court of Russia (by video link from the remand prison while being placed in a metal cage)
24/03/2016
7,500
1798/17
09/12/2016
Yevgeniy Borisovich ZHURAVLEV
1992
Vikharev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich
Sovetsk
Sovetskiy District Court of Kaliningrad
21/06/2016
7,500
15951/17
15/02/2017
Aleksandr Tarielyevich TABUTSADZE
1992
Pugachev Sergey Viktorovich
Moscow
Moscow Regional Court
16/08/2016
7,500
25006/17
11/03/2017
Yuriy Vladimirovich ALDOKHIN
1968
Chelyabinsk Regional Court
12/09/2016
7,500
75975/17
13/10/2017
Larisa Dmitriyevna DUBINA
1959
Zlobin Sergey Vladimirovich
Moscow
Volgograd Regional Court
17/04/2017
7,500
76908/17
17/10/2017
Aleksandr Viktorovich DUBOVITSKIY
1964
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Volgograd Regional Court
19/04/2017
7,500
80915/17
28/10/2017
Aleksandr Vitalyevich PROTOPOPOV
1961
Vasilyev Aleksey Anatolyevich
Izhevsk
Syktyvkar City Court of the Komi Republic, the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
03/08/2017
7,500
4794/18
17/01/2018
Maksim Alekseyevich VOLKOV
1990
Polikarkin Vladislav Nikolayevich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
02/08/2017
Art. 6 (1) - unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents - The investigating authority took the initiative to contact the applicant through their agent, the applicant’s acquaintance D. The latter sent the applicant 6 sms messages complaining of withdrawal symptoms and called him asking to buy 2 gr of amphetamine for him, which amounted to incitement
7,500
10606/18
22/02/2018
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich GUSHCHIN
1979
Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg (confinement in a glass cabin with a personal space of
< 0.4 sq. m, and in extreme temperatures during summer; lack of fresh air)
27/12/2017
7,500
3857/19
17/12/2018
Fatima Kazbekovna NAYFONOVA
1979
Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna
Moskow
Moscow City Court
(placement in a glass cabin, in the following conditions: overcrowding, insufficient space, lack of fresh air, on more than 25 occasions)
26/06/2018
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, from 26/01/2018 to 26/06/2018, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking; less than 0.6 sq. m. per inmate in a van, insufficient light;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport
8,500
24983/19
10/04/2019
Ivan Yuryevich MANKOVSKIY
1992
Mankovskaya Svetlana Petrovna
Krasnoyarsk
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (glass cabin, overcrowding, 8 co-defendants contained in the glass cabin designed for 4, insufficient number of seats, poor ventilation and audibility inside the cabin)
24/12/2018
7,500
29009/19
22/05/2019
Aleksey Borisovich NOVIKOV
1983
Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich
St Petersburg
Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
07/02/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell from 23/10/2017 to 20/03/2019, 0.3 sq. m, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, passive smoking;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport
8,500
36322/19
01/07/2019
Nikolay Leontyevich PONYATOVSKIY
1964
Surgut Town Court
09/04/2019
7,500
37228/19
25/06/2019
Vladimir Vladimirovich PROKHORTSEV
1987
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg
18/04/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by prison van, from IZ-47/1 - Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, multiple occasions between 10/04/2018 and 18/04/2019;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport
8,500
37365/19
26/06/2019
Sergey Yuryevich TOMILIN
1983
Tsentralniy District Court of Tyumen
25/03/2019
7,500
38138/19
05/07/2019
Yekaterina Sergeyevna KOVALEVA
1990
Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich
Abakan
Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia;
Abakan Town Court
05/08/2021
7,500
38403/19
10/07/2019
Maksim Vladimirovich POLIKARPOV
1976
Leninskiy District Court of Tambov
26/06/2019
7,500
39033/19
10/07/2019
Aleksandr Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV
1992
Yefimov Vitaliy Olegovich
Cheboksary
Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary
17/01/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
(by video link from the remand prison)
03/04/2019
7,500
46043/19
19/08/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOMAROVSKIKH
1980
Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
27/03/2019
7,500
50701/19
18/09/2019
Denis Savelyevich ZDOROVTSOV
1978
Egle Denis Sergeyevich
Krasnoyarsk
Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
29/07/2019
7,500
54754/19
21/09/2019
Ivan Sergeyevich FADEYEV
1984
Petrov Roman Nikolayevich
Cheboksary
Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region
11/04/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and train; from 20/05/2019 to 01/07/2019; less than 0.4 sq. m of personal space; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport
8,500
55703/19
08/10/2019
Aleksandr Pavlovich SHTRUMBERGER
1983
Abakan Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia
16/07/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 08/08/2019-09/08/2019, transport by train lasting for around 20 hours; passive smoking, lack of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport
8,500
57542/19
22/10/2019
Vadim Andreyevich KHARITONOV
1993
Severodvinsk Town Court, Arkhangelsk Regional Court
11/03/2020
7,500
64754/19
29/11/2019
Aleksey Sergeyevich DZHIGAYLO
1992
Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg
19/07/2019
7,500
2083/20
07/12/2019
Ivan Ivanovich KALINA
1980
Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich
St Petersburg
Vsevolzhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court, video link from IK-4, Leningrad region
15/08/2019
7,500
24936/20
31/05/2020
Yuriy Vasilyevich VASYUKOV
1966
Kaluga Regional Court (by way of videoconference)
05/12/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van form 23/01/2020 to 11/02/2020, applicant transported on numerous occasions, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food
8,500
27102/20
25/05/2020
Pavel Nikolayevich GRISHANIN
1971
Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
14/10/2019
7,500
27114/20
01/02/2021
Larisa Ildarovna KHALITOVA
1985
Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk
18/09/2019 - on-going placement in a metal cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
7,500
27291/20
12/03/2020
Yan Dmitriyevich KOVALEVSKIY
1995
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg
12/09/2019
7,500
46141/20
24/02/2021
Anton Yuryevich GOLUBKOV
1987
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
13/12/2019
7,500
46153/20
11/05/2021
Yuliya Valeryevna VAKHRUSHEVA
1989
Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk
15/02/2021
7,500
48160/20
07/10/2020
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich OSETROV
1989
Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
31/08/2020
7,500
53405/20
05/03/2021
Vladimir Anatolyevich GAFAROV
1984
Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich
Krasnoyarsk
Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
08/09/2020
7,500
54562/20
19/01/2021
Aleksandr Anatolyevich ANTONOV
1973
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
29/10/2020
7,500
3328/21
08/12/2020
Igor Andreyevich CHUPROV
1991
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
09/09/2020
7,500
3834/21
02/12/2020
Dmitriy Olegovich KANATCHIKOV
1990
Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich
Cheboksary
Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
03/06/2020
7,500
4528/21
12/03/2021
Aleksey Viktorovich DERNOV
1988
Kirovsky District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court (by way of video link from the remand prison)
13/11/2020
7,500
7298/21
29/12/2020
Karen Gagikovich SARGSYAN
1987
Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg City Court
(confinement in glass cabins with 8-9 co-defendants: 0.63 sq. m. of personal space (hearing rooms nos. 21, 38, 48, 58, 68); extreme overcrowding, lack of fresh air, extreme temperatures)
On-going placement on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 5 (3) - lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, collective detention orders, 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. Detention since 06/04/2018 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged with the Court.
Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg;
St Petersburg City Court; Second Appeal Court of general jurisdiction
9,750
7564/21
15/03/2021
Chechen Savelyevich OGLY
1989
Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk
05/10/2020
7,500
7993/21
10/09/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich PLATONOV
1984
Talmenskiy District Court of the Altay Region
08/06/2021
7,500
8208/21
20/09/2021
Anton Valeryevich USOV
1990
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
07/04/2021
7,500
8800/21
11/01/2021
Dmitriy Konstantinovich VARAVKA
1982
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
16/07/2020
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - refusals of long-term family visits from the applicant’s live-in partner and children in the SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk, 25/02/2019 – to 16/09/2022; restrictions during short-term visits (physical separation);
Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long‑term family visits
9,750
9049/21
12/01/2021
Maksim Gennadyevich TYURIN
1973
Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich
Krasnoyarsk
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
14/07/2020
7,500
19698/21
16/03/2021
Anton Valeryevich USENKO
1971
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (in both courts confinement in a glass cabin, with the applicant suffering from the lack of ventilation, extreme temperatures leading to the applicant suffering from shortness of breath and the need to call ambulance)
17/09/2020
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the lack of possibility for the applicant to confer privately with the lawyer as a result of the use of the security arrangement. Complaint raised during the trial and on appeal
9,750
25111/21
29/04/2021
Sabukhi Agakerimovich MURADKHANOV
1986
Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich
Astrakhan
Astrakhan Regional Court (by way of videoconference from the detention facility), Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan
14/01/2021
7,500
9328/22
10/01/2022
Andrey Vladimirovich BOROVIKOV
1988
Krikun Leonid Leonidovich
St Petersburg
Arkhangelsk Regional Court; Video link from SIZO-1, Kirov Region
15/07/2021
Third Cassation Court; Video link from SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region
23/12/2021
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy