SECOND SECTION
CASE OF YELISEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15304/19 and 39 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 Yeliseyeva 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 and/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them and/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. 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 and/or administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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 and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
11. Having regard to its finding above, 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 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, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4 July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections. It further concludes that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in application no. 50736/21.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, 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 Article 3 of the Convention about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as set out in the appended table), admissible and finds that that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in application no. 50736/21;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage during court hearings;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the 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 concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage during court hearings;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
Other complaints under
well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
15304/19
04/03/2019
Olesya Viktorovna YELISEYEVA
1979
Yezerskiy Aleksey Vladimirovich
Samara
Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court
04/09/2018
7,500
1739/20
18/12/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN
1986
Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV
1987
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
date of the relevant judgment unspecified;
Supreme Court of Russia
18/06/2019
1st applicant;
Supreme Court of Russia
26/03/2020
2nd applicant;
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Court of Appeal, Third Cassation Court
23/06/2021
2nd applicant;
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appeal Court, Third Cassation Court, Supreme Court of Russia
19/07/2021;
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
28/02/2022
1st applicant
7,500
40664/20
24/02/2021
Vitaliy Valeryevich KOTCHENKO
1982
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appeal Court
10/06/2021
7,500
50736/21
04/10/2021
Ilya Mikhaylovich TONKIKH
2001
Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi
29/07/2021
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IZ-1 Republic of Komi (detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators) from 06/01/2021 to 02/09/2021;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities;
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - Impossibility for the applicant as a prisoner to vote in elections, including elections to the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament on 19/09//2021
7,500
53112/21
06/10/2021
Viktor Nikolayevich SHCHEGLOV
1975
Kupinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region
17/05/2021
7,500
58425/21
28/10/2021
Eduard Vyacheslavovich NIKOLAYEV
1992
Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
13/07/2021
7,500
58434/21
01/11/2021
Sergey Konstantinovich SHMELEV
1994
Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
05/07/2021
7,500
58665/21
03/11/2021
Anvar Urazgaleyevich KALDAMANOV
1987
Onega Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region
20/10/2021
7,500
58731/21
11/11/2021
Takhir Rashitovich AKHMETSHIN
1976
St Petersburg Second Appellate Court
13/07/2021
7,500
59214/21
11/11/2021
Maksim Aleksandrovich GUSHCHIN
1990
Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirov Region
29/09/2021
7,500
59559/21
22/10/2021
Aleksandr Ivanovich DEVYATOV
1976
Argayashskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
06/08/2021
7,500
59575/21
21/01/2022
Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BESSONOV
1991
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
29/12/2021
7,500
59729/21
16/02/2022
Nikolay Sergeyevich KLEMETS
1978
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
10/12/2021
7,500
60502/21
20/11/2021
Pavel Vladimirovich AGAFUROV
1984
Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court
30/07/2021
7,500
60503/21
07/11/2021
Olga Aleksandrovna LOGINOVA
1995
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
17/05/2021
7,500
60504/21
17/11/2021
Maksim Vadimovich TROFIMENKO
1993
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd
Since 06/07/2021 -
end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged
7,500
60505/21
25/11/2021
Fenil Minnereisovich SMENOV
1978
Batyrevskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
19/08/2021
7,500
60844/21
29/11/2021
Aleksandr Anatolyevich ARTEYEV
1970
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
31/05/2021
7,500
61017/21
25/02/2022
Nikita Sergeyevich FEDOROV
1998
Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov
17/02/2022
7,500
61023/21
17/02/2022
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KUZMINYKH
1982
Sovetsk Town Court of the Kirov Region
13/12/2021
7,500
61081/21
29/11/2021
Vitaliy Valentinovich OVCHINNIKOV
1969
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk
24/08/2021
7,500
61378/21
27/11/2021
Aleksandr Leonidovich SAFRONOV
1974
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk
28/07/2021
7,500
61384/21
23/11/2021
Anton Alekseyevich MOKROUSOV
1980
Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court
15/06/2021
7,500
61390/21
30/11/2021
Maksim Vladimirovich SHADRIN
1990
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk
29/07/2021
Novosibirsk Regional Court
13/09/2021
7,500
61592/21
07/12/2021
Nikolay Nikolayevich BOGOLYUBOV
2000
Korneyev Aleksey Igorevich
Bryansk
Leninskiy District Court of Kursk
24/06/2021
7,500
61654/21
04/12/2021
Faridun Yatimovich DOSTIYEV
1991
Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan, Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court
08/09/2021
7,500
111/22
22/11/2021
Roman Nikolayevich STARKOV
1993
Justice of the Peace of the 70-th Judicial District of Kirov
03/08/2021
7,500
179/22
13/12/2021
Denis Aleksandrovich RYZHOV
1987
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
15/06/2021
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train, from 28/10/2021 to 20/12/2021, 0.2-0.4 sq. m. of personal space, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, 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
180/22
07/12/2021
Denis Vladimirovich FADEYEV
2000
Kazan Garrison Military Court
21/06/2021
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IZ-1 Republic of Tatarstan, 13/03/2021-16/07/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
7,500
466/22
30/11/2021
Aleksey Alekseyevich DYUZHEV
1988
Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich
Volgograd
Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd
25/10/2021
7,500
597/22
23/11/2021
Albert Dinariyevich SAYFULLIN
1982
Khaziyeva Elvira Ilgizovna
Almetyevsk
Supreme Court of Russia
02/09/2021
7,500
613/22
14/03/2022
Sergey Viktorovich OKHAPKIN
1989
Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov
09/03/2022
7,500
793/22
20/12/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MATYASKIN
1994
Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich
Orel
Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Sovetskiy District Court of Samara, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan
27/07/2021
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention in custody from 27/04/2017 to 27/07/2021, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial
9,750
835/22
26/11/2021
Denis Gennadyevich KRUGLYANIN
1979
Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court
since 28/11/2017 - end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention since 28/11/2017 and ongoing at the time when the application was lodged with the Court. Specific defects: as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
9,750
985/22
15/12/2021
Sergey Vladimirovich YEGOROV
1967
Panshina Yelena Nikolayevna
Moscow
Moscow City Court
16/06/2021
7,500
1077/22
15/12/2021
Aleksandr Yuryevich GONCHAROV
1982
Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi
29/06/2021
7,500
2243/22
13/12/2021
Yevgeniy Nikolayevich AGAFONOV
1984
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
15/06/2021
7,500
2245/22
10/12/2021
Denis Aleksandrovich SOLOVYEV
1982
Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
18/06/2021
7,500
2246/22
13/12/2021
Marat Radifovich KHANNANOV
1987
Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan
30/09/2021
7,500
2247/22
21/12/2021
Grigoriy Aleksandrovich ZINOVYEV
1992
Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
03/08/2021
Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi
21/01/2022
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy