SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14228/18 and 37 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 Panin 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 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 ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. 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, 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.
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 amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. Having regard to the above finding, 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 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, regarding the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, concerning the authorities’ failure to secure an immediate release of a detainee; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards excessive length of pre-trial detention; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Pal v. the United Kingdom, no. 44261/19, §§ 39-63, 30 November 2021, related to criminal arrest and prosecution in breach of Article 10 of the Convention).remaining complaints
13. Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention by Mr Kurmoyarov, the applicant in application no. 56493/22 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).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 complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ placement in a metal cage in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and the absence of an effective remedy to complain in that regard, and other complaints, raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 raised by Mr Kurmoyarov in application no. 56493/22;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 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 related to the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms;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
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]
14228/18
06/03/2018
Denis Vladimirovich PANIN
1978
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
Video link from SIZO-5, Kashira
26/10/2017
7,500
21314/18
16/04/2018
Ivan Aleksandrovich FEDORYAK
1989
Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna
Rostov-on-Don
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don
26/12/2017
7,500
37081/18
23/07/2018
Yevgeniy Leonidovich PAYUSOV
1978
Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
24/01/2018;
Arkhangelsk Regional Court
27/03/2018
7,500
46898/18
17/09/2018
Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV
1978
Vologda Town Court, Vologda Regional Court
26/03/2018
7,500
53355/18
29/10/2018
Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAVYALOV
1983
Chistopol Town Court
04/05/2018
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 18/07/2018: van, lack of fresh air, overcrowding - transported with 20 inmates; the transfer lasted three hours;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – IK‑11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region, since 01/09/2018 – ongoing on the date of lodging the application with the Court, 1.8. sq. m of personal space, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
16,300
53394/18
26/10/2018
Igor Vladimirovich USHAKOV
1982
Ramenskoye Town Court
05/05/2018
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport –
(1) from 20/04/2017 to 05/05/2018; more than 20 transfers, van, convoy cells; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, restricted access to toilet, insufficient quantity of food, inadequate temperature; the applicant was placed in a single compartment measuring 0.3 sq. m., on certain occasions another inmate was placed in the same compartment with the applicant; transfers lasted 6 hours;
(2) from 05/05/2018 to 03/09/2018 by train from the pre-trial detention facility to the colony via numerous transit facilities: overcrowdin), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, 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
9,750
59246/18
26/11/2018
Viktor Igorevich ABRAMOV
1990
Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
16/07/2018
7,500
59610/18
26/11/2018
Azamat Vagizovich MIRKHAYDAROV
1971
Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich
Tyumen
Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
18/07/2018
7,500
59865/18
26/11/2018
Denis Igorevich KAZANOVSKIY
1996
Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich
Tyumen
Surgut Town Court
28/05/2018
7,500
269/19
20/04/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KRAVCHENKO
1978
Pskov Regional Court
09/01/2019
7,500
1475/19
20/12/2018
Sergey Sergeyevich BORISIKHIN
1974
Petrov Roman Nikolayevich
Cheboksary
Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, numerous hearings with the most recent on the date of conviction:
29/06/2018
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 20/09/2018 to 13/10/2018, 0.2‑0.5 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food
8,500
1494/19
07/12/2018
Ramil Failevich KALIYEV
1980
Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen
03/09/2018
7,500
2124/19
01/12/2018
Dmitriy Andreyevich KUZNETSOV
2000
Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad
06/07/2018
7,500
2253/19
17/12/2018
Aleksey Vyacheslavovich NOSKOV
1994
Belovo Town Court of Kemerovo Region
16/08/2018
7,500
4039/19
04/01/2019
Ilgar Elshan ogly GUSEYNOV
1987
Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich
Tyumen
Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad
20/11/2018
7,500
6727/19
08/01/2019
Vitaliy Aleksandrovich PRISHIBSKIY
1991
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk, Orenburg Regional Court
via video link from SIZO-2, Orsk
09/07/2018
7,500
11677/19
06/02/2019
Denis Yuryevich VYSOTSKIY
1989
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region
08/05/2019
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 25/11/2018 to 25/05/2019 based exclusively on the gravity of the charges (drug dealing); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance phone tapping pursuant to the order of the Taganrog Town Court of 17/09/2018. Specific defects: the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”. The applicant learnt about phone tapping on 18/01/2019 at the latest. He was allowed to study the relevant documents in July 2019.
9,750
13173/19
17/02/2019
Liliya Aleksandrovna MARINICHEVA
1970
Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich
Moscow
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court
03/12/2020
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van; from 04/06/2014 to 04/09/2018, 0.2 sq. m per inmate; overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature;
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 4 days of unlawful detention. On 03/12/2020 the Samara Regional Court reviewed the applicant’s sentence on appeal and ruled for release of the applicant. The applicant was released only on 07/12/2020 due to administrative formalities (she was participating in the appeal hearing via video link, prison administration waited for a certified copy of the decision; the distance between the court and the facility is around 200 km)
9,750
14055/19
20/12/2018
Igor Gennadyevich CHEPCHIN
1980
Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna
St Petersburg
Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; Leningrad Regional Court
10/07/2018
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, from 17/12/2015 to 10/07/2018,
0.4 sq. m. per inmate, inadequate temperature, lack of seat belts, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no food. The transfers lasted up to 8 hours;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
8,500
17426/19
13/03/2019
Sergey Aysarovich KONOVALOV
1984
Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
15/10/2018
7,500
19319/19
27/03/2019
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich STETSIK
1995
Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
09/11/2018
7,500
32916/19
13/06/2019
Boris Muzarachevich KALMYKOV
1960
Goncharenko Natalya Germanovna
Chita
Zabaykalskiy Regional Court
11/01/2019
7,500
34376/19
06/06/2019
Dmitriy Valentinovich MIKHAYLOV
1990
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
24/10/2018
7,500
34586/19
19/06/2019
Dinar Fanitovich SADIROV
1993
Verkhniy Uslon District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
21/12/2018
7,500
46611/20
30/09/2020
Pavel Andreyevich MELNIKOV
1994
Sommer Ulrich
Köln
Syktyvdvinskiy District Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
01/06/2020
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Syktyvkar Komi Republic, 08/11/2018 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged; detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by train on 07/06/2020 and 12/07/2020 - overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, transport for more than 24 hours.
8,500
46237/21
30/08/2021
Maksim Vladimirovich SHLEGEL
1977
Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court (via videoconference), 21/06/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in vans from 29/03/2021 to 04/06/2021, overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m. of personal space, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet; the journeys lasted approximately 3 to 6 hours
8,500
46509/21
22/08/2021
Nikolay Valentinovich KONDRATYUK
1978
Onezhsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Justice of the Peace no. 2 of Onezhskiy Judicial District of Arkhangelsk Region
29/10/2021
7,500
47606/21
07/09/2021
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich FINOGENOV
1969
Khabarovsk Regional Court
18/03/2021
Sol-Iletskiy District Court of Orenburg Region
25/03/2021
7,500
57503/21
02/11/2021
Dmitriy Vasilyevich NOSKOV
1977
Noskova Tatyana Valeryevna
Irkutsk
Kirovskiy District Court;
Video link from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region
Irkutsk Garrison Military Court
Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk
28/12/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of the applicant’s transport by van from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region to the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk in a single-prisoner cubicle on numerous occasions in the period from 23/01/2020 to 26/10/2021, lack of fresh air, 0.5 sq. m. of personal space, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 12/12/2019-21/10/2021, Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial;
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region; 13/12/2019 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court; detention in different cells with video surveillance.
9,750
60247/21
23/11/2021
Eduard Anatolyevich SMOLNIKOV
1966
Syktyvkar District Court, Supreme Court of Komi Republic
From 23/04/2021 to 11/11/2021
7,500
3038/22
08/12/2021
Maksim Aleksandrovich VASILYEV
1982
Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg (in the courthouse); St Petersburg City Court (video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg)
From 04/06/2021 to 09/02/2022
7,500
3347/22
23/12/2021
Aleksandr Serafimovich KIRSEYEV
1954
Second Court of Appeal (video link from SIZO-1, Komi Republic)
01/09/2021
7,500
4451/22
16/12/2021
Makar Maksimovich RUFOV
2000
Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic
13/07/2021
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Komi Republic, 16/02/2020 - 15/11/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
7,500
5773/22
01/12/2021
Oleg Mikhaylovich KOROLEV
1979
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk;
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (video-link from SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region), from 30/06/2021 to 20/07/2021
7,500
6177/22
23/03/2022
Nikolay Vasilyevich TARATYNKO
1989
Ezhvinskiy District Court of the Komi Republic
01/12/2021;
Katayevskiy District Court of the Komi Republic
18/03/2022
7,500
18565/22
14/03/2022
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich VASILYEV
1976
Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 141 of the Nizhneingashskiy District of the Krasnoyarsk Region
from 15/03/2019 to 25/02/2022
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
transport on numerous occasions to the court hearings and for studying his casefile in the period from 25/01/2017 to 25/02/2022 in a single-prisoner cubicle (“stakan”), duration of transport of about 2.5 to 5 hours on each occasion, applicant transported on numerous occasions, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, insufficient personal space.
8,500
33410/22
17/06/2022
Vyacheslav Iosifovich CHIZHINOK
1982
Supreme Court of Komi Republic
24/12/2021
7,500
56493/22
18/11/2022
Ioann Valeryevich KURMOYAROV
1968
Krikun Leonid Leonidovich
St Petersburg
St Petersburg City Court
Video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg, from 20/07/2022 to 16/09/2022
Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – arrest and criminal prosecution under Article 207.3 § 2 - d ("д") for publishing anti-war video recordings in social network Vkontakte between 06/03/2022 and 05/04/2022;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the St Petersburg City Court reviewed the detention orders of the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 28/07/2022 on 31/08/2022;
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - pre-trial detention on the charges of spreading intentionally “fake” news about the Russian armed forced is pending as of 16/09/2022 (since 08/06/2022); detention orders issued by the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court. Specific defects: use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
9,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy