THIRD SECTION
CASE OF VOZHDAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 28840/12 and 8 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vozhdayev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2022,
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 (or glass cabin) 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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage (or 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.”
7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage (or glass cabin) 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, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017, the Court has 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. In the leading case of Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-26, 4 October 2016, the Court found that whereas the placement of defendants in glass cabins did not in itself involve an element of humiliation sufficient to reach the minimum level of severity, as is the case with metal cages, this level could be attained if the circumstances of their confinement, taken as a whole, would cause them distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. Such circumstances could involve, in particular, extreme shortage of space inside the glass cabin.
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 cases the applicants’ confinement in metal cages (or glass cabins) 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. In applications nos. 73743/14, 74597/14, 74847/14 and 55772/18 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 Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 114-56, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. In applications nos. 28840/12, 52153/15 and 55772/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. 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.
14. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15. In applications nos. 73743/14, 74597/14, 74847/14, 50164/15, 52153/15 and 61061/15 the applicants further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the impact their confinement in metal cages (or glass cabins) during the criminal proceedings against them had on the fairness of those proceedings. In applications nos. 50164/15 and 61061/15 the applicants further complained under Article 13 of the Convention in connection with the above complaints under Articles 3 and 6.
16. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties,
and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in сonnection with the use of metal cages (glass cabins) in courtrooms and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints in this respect (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION17. 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.”
18. 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages (or glass cabins) in courtrooms and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that there is no need to examine other complaints in applications nos. 73743/14, 74597/14, 74847/14, 50164/15, 52153/15 and 61061/15 which the applicants raised in view of their placement in metal cages (glass cabins), and declares the remainder of applications nos. 28840/12, 52153/15 and 55772/18 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in metal cages (or glass cabins) 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(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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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
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]
28840/12
09/05/2012
and
61802/14
13/08/2014
(3 applicants)
Kirill Aleksandrovich VOZHDAYEV
1992
Kirill Aleksandrovich VOZHDAYEV
1992
German Mikhaylovich VYATSKIY
1990
Zurab Rezoyevich SHAVDIYA
1987
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Moscow City Court
(via video link from
SIZO-4 of Moscow)
20/02/2014
7,500,
to each of the three applicants, Mr Vozhdayev,
Mr Vyatskiy and
Mr Shavdiya
73743/14
13/11/2014
Dmitriy Nikolayevich RYNDIN
1975
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
Taganrog Town
Court of the Rostov Region
11/02/2016
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, 05/02/2014-11/02/2016, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
2,500
74597/14
13/11/2014
Aleksandr Vladimirovich MOROZOV
1977
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
Taganrog Town Court
of the Rostov Region
11/02/2016
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, 05/02/2014-11/02/2016, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
9,750
74847/14
13/11/2014
Anatoliy Gennadyevich SEMILUTSKIY
1961
Kiryanova Yekaterina Vasilyevna
Taganrog
Taganrog Town Court
of the Rostov Region
11/02/2016
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, 05/02/2014-11/02/2016, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice
9,750
50164/15
23/09/2015
Ivan Ildusovich ZALYAMUTDINOV
1988
Dunayeva Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk
23/03/2015
7,500
52153/15
29/09/2015
Dmitriy Viktorovich KLIMENKO
1972
Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Taganrog
Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region
11/02/2016
2,100
61061/15
28/11/2015
Andrey Alekseyevich KOSTYLEV
1974
Dunayeva Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelaybinsk
28/05/2015
7,500
55772/18
01/09/2018
Georgiy Vyacheslavovich VOROBYEV
1979
Justice of the Peace, Ukhta, Komi Republic; Ukhta Town Court
30/07/2018
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of poor conditions of transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and train on 17/08/2018; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of safety measures
8,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.