THIRD SECTION
CASE OF POLYAKOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 32532/18 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 July 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Polyakovy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 June 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, and Pivkina and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 2134/23 and 6 others, § 46, 6 June 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION7. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of the criminal proceedings against them. 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 amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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.
12. 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 Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia, nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, §§ 256‑73, 7 June 2022, concerning the arbitrary criminal prosecution of applicants for peacefully practising the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses in community with others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, concerning of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention, and Misan v. Russia, no. 4261/04, 2 October 2014, concerning a search of the applicant’s home conducted in the absence of safeguards.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
14. 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 and must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention, or do not require separate examination in view of the Court’s findings in paragraphs 9-10 and 12 above.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION15. 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 respect of the first, the second and the fifth applicants in application no. 14706/20 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 and rejects the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that the remaining complaints are inadmissible or that it is not necessary to examine them separately;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 appended table);Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first, second and third applicants in application no. 14706/20;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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
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 non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)[2]
32532/18
28/08/2018
Household
Sergey Valeryevich POLYAKOV
1972
Anastasiya Andreyevna POLYAKOVA
1984
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Azovskiy District Court of Omsk
14/11/2018
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention order by the Azovskiy District Court of Omsk of 06/07/2018, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants’ having committed a crime; appeal rejected by the Omsk Regional Court on 16/07/2018,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – Following arrest on 04/07/2018, detention on remand was extended by the Azovskiy District Court of Omsk on 13/08/2018, 11/09/2018, 14/11/2018; no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention; released on 04/12/2018 under an undertaking not to leave (house arrest),
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated local religious organisation (LRO) of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Omsk despite the decision of the Russian Federation Supreme Court declaring it an extremist organisation and holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses
9,750 to each applicant
250 to each applicant
58321/18
30/11/2018
(3 applicants)
Konstantin Viktorovich BAZHENOV
1975
Aleksey Vladimirovich BUDENCHUK
1982
Feliks Khasanovich MAKHAMMADIYEV
1984
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov
Proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention orders by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov of 14/06/2018, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants’ having committed a crime; appeals rejected by the Saratov Regional Court on 25/06/2018,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - detention on remand extended by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov on 07/08/2018 (upheld on appeal by the Saratov Regional Court on 23/08/2018); no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for “repeatedly conducting meetings of followers and participants of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Saratov, joint singing of Bible hymns, improving skills for carrying out missionary activity, studying of religious literature and other sources of information advocating the religious teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses”
9,750 to each applicant
250 to each applicant
223/19
18/12/2018
and
20354/20
18/05/2020
Valeriy Vasilyevich MOSKALENKO
1967
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Regional Court (video link)
03/12/2018
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention order by the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Khabarovsk of 03/08/2018, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s having committed a crime; appeal rejected by the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 20/08/2018,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - pre-trial detention extended on 08/10/2018 and 03/12/2018 by the Khabarovsk Regional Court; no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 8 (1) – Unlawful search - home search and seizure of the applicant’s belongings; authorised on 01/08/2018 by the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Khabarovsk; scope of the search – “documents and other media, electronic or technical equipment and communication devices indicative of the continuation of the activity of the extremist religious organisation Jehovah’s Witnesses”; carried out on 02/08/2018; Khabarovsk Regional Court rejected the appeal complaint on 03/09/2018,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses by holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses, sharing beliefs with others and studying religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses
9,750
250
2799/19
04/01/2019
Dmitriy Viktorovich BARMAKIN
1974
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorye Regional Court (video link)
Proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention order by the Pervorechenskiy District Court of Vladivostok of 30/07/2018, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s having committed a crime; appeal rejected by the Primorye Regional Court on 24/08/2018,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - detention on remand between 28/07/2018 and 18/10/2019; no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 8 (1) – Unlawful search - home search and seizure of the applicant’s belongings on 28/07/2018; search warrant issued on 28/07/2018 by Senior Investigator of Investigating Committee; scope of the search – “objects and documents, including those contained on digital media, monetary resources important to the investigation, literature with extremist content, substances and objects banned from lawful circulation in the Russian Federation”; the final decisions recognising the lawfulness of the search taken by the Nakhodka Town Court on 30/07/2018 and the Primorye Regional Court on 16/10/2018,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Vladivostok despite the decision of the Russian Supreme Court declaring it an extremist organisation and holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses
9,750
250
60363/19
08/11/2019
Irina Gennadyevna BUGLAK
1975
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Partizansk Town Court of the Primorye Region, Primorye Regional Court
16/10/2019
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention order by the Partizansk Town Court of the Primorye Region of 20/04/2019, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s having committed a crime; appeal rejected by the Primorye Regional Court on 14/05/2019,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - detention on remand between 20/04/2019 and 16/10/2019 (extension orders of 13/06/2019, 17/07/2019, 17/09/2019); no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 8 (1) - Unlawful search - home search and seizure of the applicant’s belongings on 20/04/2019; search warrant issued on 19/04/2019 by Investigator of the Investigating Committee; scope of the search – “literature, religious paraphernalia, bank cards, electronic devices, money obtained by criminal means, items and documents of interest to the investigation, as well as items, articles and materials banned from lawful circulation”; the final decisions recognising the lawfulness of the search taken by the Partizansk Town Court on 23/04/2019 and the Primorye Regional Court on 11/06/2019,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Partizansk despite the decision of the Russian Supreme Court declaring it an extremist organisation and holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses
9,750
250
61404/19
22/11/2019
Roman Sergeyevich MAKHNEV
1976
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region
Proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention order by the Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region of 28/06/2019, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s having committed a crime; appeal rejected by the Kaluga Regional Court on 08/07/2019,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - detention on remand starting from 28/06/2019 (extension orders by the Kaluzhskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region of 26/08/2019 and 24/10/2019); no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Kaluga despite the decision of the Russian Supreme Court declaring it an extremist organisation, holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses, distributing "extremist" literature and sharing his beliefs with others
9,750
250
65002/19
17/12/2019
(4 applicants)
Mariya Viktorovna KARPOVA
1980
Marat Nazimovich ABDULGALIMOV
1991
Arsen Nazimovich ABDULLAYEV
1979
Anton Olegovich DERGALEV
1985
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala
Proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - detention orders by the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala of 03/06/2019, no reference to any evidence proving the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicants’ having committed a crime; appeals rejected by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan on 21/06/2019,
Art. 5 (3) - Lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention - detention on remand starting from 01/06/2019 (extension orders by the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala of 25/07/2019, 24/09/2019); no indication of specific evidence demonstrating the need for continued detention,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution on charges of extremism for “entering into a criminal conspiracy and creating in Makhachkala, Republic of Dagestan, a stable and organised cell pursuing the goals and objectives of the extremist organisation Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia”
9,750 to each applicant
250 to each applicant
14706/20
16/03/2020
(6 applicants)
Konstantin Viktorovich BAZHENOV
1975
Aleksey Vladimirovich BUDENCHUK
1982
Gennadiy Vasilyevich GERMAN
1969
Roman Aleksandrovich GRIDASOV
1978
Feliks Khasanovich MAKHAMMADIYEV
1984
Aleksey Petrovich MIRETSKIY
1975
Muzny Petr
Geneva
Saratov Regional Court (video link)
20/12/2019
Art. 5 (1) - Unlawful detention - the applicants were taken into custody in the courtroom following their conviction by the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov on 19/09/2019 as a result of a flagrant denial of justice,
Art. 9 (1) - Freedom of religion – arbitrary criminal prosecution of applicants 3, 4 and 6 (Messrs. German, Gridasov, and Miretskiy) on charges of extremism for pursuing the activities of a liquidated LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Saratov despite the decision of the Russian Federation Supreme Court declaring it an extremist organisation, holding religious services of Jehovah’s Witnesses, joint singing of Bible hymns, preaching and studying of religious literature advocating the religious teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses
9,750 to Messrs.
German, Gridasov and Miretskiy
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in respect of Messrs. Bazhenov, Budenchuk and Makhammadiyev
250 to Messrs.
German, Gridasov and Miretskiy
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.