THIRD SECTION
CASE OF POKUSIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 21440/13 and 9 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pokusin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2018,
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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
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
I. JOINDER 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. 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:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept 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.
8. 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.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. In applications nos. 42204/17 and 83401/17, the 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108 and 154-158, 22 May 2012).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 34442/15, 18293/17, 33984/17, 42204/17, 44658/17 and 52066/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the applications nos. 34442/15, 18293/17, 33984/17, 42204/17, 44658/17 and 52066/17 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints 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;
4. 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);
5. 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 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date 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]
21440/13
14/03/2013
Maksim Igorevich Pokusin
21/01/1990
Abakanskiy Town Court of
the Republic of Khakassiya
27/09/2012
7,500
8052/14
11/01/2014
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Shashov
23/08/1977
Butenko Yevgeniy Viktorovich
Krasnodar
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar
(11 hearings)
24/07/2013
7,500
34442/15
19/02/2016
Vladimir Yuryevich Tyshchenko
07/06/1982
Vyshnevolotsk Town Court
18/11/2015
7,500
18293/17
15/02/2017
Pavel Vasilyevich Shusharov
02/10/1979
Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Kostroma
Sverdlovskiy District Court of
Kostroma
04/10/2016
7,500
33984/17
28/03/2017
Petr Anatolyevich Yakovlev
03/07/1987
Shishkina Olga Yevgenyevna
Arkhangelsk
Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
25/10/2016
7,500
42204/17
22/05/2017
Yelena Vladimirovna Medvedeva
30/01/1977
Moskovskiy District Court of
Nizhny Novgorod
25/04/2017
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on several occasions after 07/03/2017 the applicant was transported by overcrowded prison vans to court hearings
9,750
44658/17
03/06/2017
Aleksey Nikolayevich Chetyrkin
02/05/1982
Kogalym Town Court
of the Khanty-Mansiysk Region
27/12/2016
7,500
52066/17
05/07/2017
Mikhail Vladimirovich Geyntse
20/11/1986
Achinsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, three hearings with the applicant in a metal cage, including the most recent on 27/03/2017
7,500
81600/17
17/11/2017
Vasiliy Anatolyevich Shatalov
12/10/1968
Suntsov Andrey Andreyevich
Izhevsk
Ustinovskiy District Court of Izhevsk, numerous hearings in which the applicant was placed in a metal cage, with the most recent hearing on 10/11/2017
7,500
83401/17
30/11/2017
Sergey Vladimirovich Morozov
17/02/1965
Nazarov Vladimir Veniaminovich
Vladivostok
Nakhodka Town Court - Primorye Regional Court; participation in hearings via video link with the applicant being placed in a metal cage, several dates with the most recent on
30/05/2017
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention authorised by the Nakhodka Town Court on 28/04/2017; statement of appeal lodged on 05/05/2017; appeal examination by the Primorye Regional Court took place 26 days later, on 31/05/2017.
8,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy