THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 64304/19 and 47 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mamin 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 30 May 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. 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 VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
Some applicants also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievance 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, no. 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.
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 (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022) 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 amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. In view of the above findings under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach 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 the 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 well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 73-75, 18 July 2013, as regards detention in the absence of a court order following the quashing of the conviction by a superior court; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention).
remaining complaints13. Lastly, having examined the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention lodged by Mr Timergaliyev (application no. 7382/20) in respect of the conditions of his detention in a remand prison pending the criminal proceedings against him, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining these complaints for the reasons set out below.
14. The Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. He is no longer detained in the conditions complained of. It further notes that it was open to the applicant to make resort to a new compensatory remedy, introduced by the Russian Federation on 27 January 2020, in respect of his complaints concerning the conditions of detention in breach of the national legislation (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
15. Regard being had to its findings in Shmelev and Others (cited above) that the said remedy presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for redress and offers reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 54), and having regard to the fact that, after the transfer from the remand prison, the applicant did not inform the Court of any further developments in his case, the Court considers it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
16. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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 applications nos. 3478/20 and 9395/20 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 complaints about to the applicants’ placement in the metal cages in courtrooms and other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (as laid down in the appended table) admissible and decides to strike the part of application no. 7382/20 out of its list of cases, as regards the complaints about poor conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect;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 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 the appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in courtroom;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 3478/20 and 9395/20;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 4 July 2024, 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
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment or date of the end of the relevant period
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
64304/19
18/11/2019
Roman Ibragimovich MAMIN
1980
Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
30/05/2019
7,500
279/20
11/02/2020
Artem Valeryevich LUTOSHKIN
1978
Leninskiy District Court of Kirov; Kirov Regional Court
20/08/2019
Kirov Regional Court; Video Link from SIZO-2, Kirov Region
20/08/2019
7,500
948/20
06/04/2020
Pavel Nikolayevich IVANOV
1989
Ust-Abakanskiy District Court of the Khakassia Republic
30/01/2020
7,500
1442/20
02/03/2020
Konstantin Vladimirovich YEFREMOV
1984
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
30/01/2020
7,500
2316/20
17/12/2019
Ilya Valeryevich MOKSHIN
1994
Novosibirsk Regional Court and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by way of videoconference from the courtroom of the Novosibirsk Regional Court, while being placed in a metal cage)
01/08/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train (Novosibirsk - Krasnoyarsk); 24/09/2019 - 25/09/2019; insufficient number of sleeping places
8,500
2434/20
22/11/2019
Aleksey Anatolyevich BURKOV
1981
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
28/05/2019
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in a van and train between 25/06/2019 - 27/06/2019 with 0.2 m² per inmate, overcrowding, absence of safety belts by van, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, no ventilation, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet
8,500
2437/20
23/12/2019
Nikita Sergeyevich MURASHEV
1992
Vorkuta Town Court
01/07/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 0.2 m2 of personal space, overcrowding, transport on numerous occasions from the detention facility from 02/08/2018 to 27/02/2020; train, 0.4 m2 of personal space, overcrowding, no individual speeling place, transport in the period 15-17/12/2020 from SIZO-3 Komi Republic to IK-25 Komi Republic;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
5,400
3478/20
31/12/2019
Yelena Vladimirovna MEDVEDEVA
1977
Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
11/12/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 16/10/2019 and 11/12/2019 in a single occupancy compartment of prison vans (insufficient personal space of 0.3 sq. m)
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
4589/20
24/12/2019
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich DRYUPIN
1984
Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
31/10/2019
7,500
4697/20
09/01/2020
Aleksandr Villisovich SHTULBERG
1955
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
09/07/2019
7,500
5709/20
07/01/2020
Rakhim Ablikimovich KASYMOV
1986
Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Region
30/09/2019
7,500
6096/20
31/03/2020
Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV
1985
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
05/02/2020
5,500
6537/20
27/12/2019
Nikita Fedorovich CHMYR
1993
Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic
01/07/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 02/08/2018-26/12//2019, van and transit cells in the courthouse; applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, passive smoking; 20/08/2021- 04/12/2021, train, 0.36-0.57 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
6788/20
11/01/2020
Dmitriy Alekseyevich GROMOV
1987
Moscow City Court, Video link from SIZO-2, Moscow
11/07/2019
7,500
6845/20
09/01/2020
Nikolay Vladimirovich BRYLEV
1990
Chernovskiy District Court of Chita
15/10/2019
7,500
7382/20
13/12/2019
Anvar Magnaviyevich TIMERGALIYEV
1984
Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic
15/07/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transport by rail from Vorkuta to Pechora on multiple occasions, from 30/11/2018 ongoing on the date when the applicant was lodged with the court; overcrowded compartments
7,500
8166/20
04/12/2019
Andrey Germanovich BOVTALOV
1971
Novosibirsk Regional Court
13/06/2019
7,500
8187/20
15/12/2019
Sergey Valeryevich NASYROV
1985
Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court
04/12/2019
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport by van between the detention facility and the courthouse from 31/03/2016 to 09/08/2021; 0.2 sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding. Transfers lasted 2 to 3 hours
8,500
8199/20
09/01/2020
Aleksey Vladimirovich GOLOVIN
1981
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
01/02/2020
7,500
8226/20
25/01/2020
Ruslan Valeryevich SOROKIN
1987
Video link from SIZO-2, Kirov Region
19/09/2019
3,000
8610/20
17/01/2020
Oleg Vladislavovich YERMAKOV
1966
Vygonichskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region;
Bryansk Regional Court,
video link from SIZO-1, Bryansk
17/07/2019
7,500
9320/20
29/01/2020
Vladimir Nikolayevich STASENKOV
1963
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by way of videoconference from a metal cage) and in the Penza Regional Court
06/08/2019
7,500
9395/20
11/02/2020
Erik Iskoyevich MIRZOYAN
1992
Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court (by way of video conference from a metal cage)
09/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention without any court order from 01/11/2019 to 15/11/2019 - Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court’s omission to rule on the issue following the quashing of the conviction;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 15/11/2019 was reviewed only on 09/12/2019
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.
9714/20
05/02/2020
Maksim Yevgenyevich ZAYTSEV
1983
Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court
26/08/2019
7,500
10354/20
08/02/2020
Nikita Vladimirovich CHENTSOV
1996
Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court
Video link from SIZO-4, Moscow
08/08/2019
7,500
10886/20
30/03/2020
Andrey Aleksandrovich STARODUBOV
1994
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
01/10/2019
7,500
10905/20
05/02/2020
Igor Vyacheslavovich NESTEROV
1982
Justice of the Peace of the Magistralnyy Judicial Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District of Syktyvkar
12/08/2019
7,500
11540/20
12/02/2020
Andrey Yuryevich PASHKOVSKIY
1973
Volosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region
14/08/2019
7,500
11593/20
07/02/2020
Vladimir Yuryevich IVANOV
1986
Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
09/12/2019
7,500
12002/20
07/02/2020
Denis Yuryevich MUKHAMEDZHANOV
1979
Justice of the Peace of the Parkovyy Judicial Circuit of Vorkuta
22/01/2020
7,500
12170/20
18/02/2020
Andrey Ilyich KRYLOV
1982
Severodvinsk Town Court, Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court
05/09/2019
7,500
12217/20
10/02/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TERNENKO
1977
Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court
05/09/2019
7,500
12517/20
10/02/2020
Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH
1994
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
02/12/2019
7,500
13305/20
10/02/2020
Aleksey Igorevich PAKHOMOV
1984
Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg
23/10/2019
7,500
13591/20
18/05/2020
Igor Sergeyevich MYADELETS
1986
Kirovsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region
12/03/2020
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van between 14/11/2019 and 12/03/2020 on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse; 0.4 sq. m of personal space; van and transit cell; overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet
8,500
13699/20
15/02/2020
Dmitriy Vladimirovich LYADOV
1981
Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg
16/08/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse from 15/02/2018 to 16/08/2019; by van; overcrowding, restricted access to toilet and fresh air
8,500
13890/20
06/05/2020
Sergey Igorevich FOKIN
1981
Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
12/03/2020
7,500
14312/20
17/03/2020
Gennadiy Nikolayevich MASLICH
1981
Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic
25/02/2020
7,500
16840/20
10/03/2020
Aleksandr Viktorovich EBERT
1984
Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg
12/02/2020
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 24/04/2019 - 27/06/2022, Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership in an organised criminal group
8,750
17226/20
24/03/2020
David Romanovich DAVITASHVILI
1973
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
08/09/2020
7,500
18419/20
27/03/2020
Kadir Bazarbayevich USMANOV
1984
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
04/10/2019
7,500
18604/20
09/04/2020
Ilya Sergeyevich GUSEV
1987
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Video link from IK-31, Krasnoyarsk Region
10/02/2020
7,500
19313/20
27/03/2020
Nikolay Sergeyevich KLUBAYEV
1982
Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg
09/10/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - lengthy transfers in vans to the courthouse from 02/10/2019 to 09/10/2019, overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m per person
8,500
19575/20
04/05/2020
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich FABRYY
1977
Leninskiy and Kirovskiy District Courts of Rostov-on-Don and Rostov Regional Court
08/11/2019
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in prison vans and cells at the courthouses from 17/02/2017 to 08/11/2019; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of food and potable water
4,700
20623/20
23/04/2020
Eduard Vardanovich SALIMOV
2000
Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen
24/10/2019
7,500
20634/20
23/04/2020
Stepan Georgiyevich NIKOARA
1989
Surgut Town Court
05/12/2019
7,500
20979/20
09/04/2020
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLPAKOV
1984
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
20/01/2020
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by van on numerous occasions to the courthouse and his detention in the transit cell of the Tsentralniy District court of Krasnoyarsk. From 03/07/2019 to 12/02/2020. 1.2 sq. m of personal space. Lack of fresh air, natural light and privacy for toilet.
8,500
21271/20
27/04/2020
Andrey Pavlovich SOKOLOV
1961
Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Komi Republic and Supreme Court of the Republic Komi
14/10/2019
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.