FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ZUBAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 19753/18 and 30 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zubarev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them 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 and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
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.
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. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).
10. 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 and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; and 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.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. 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 applications nos. 45032/21 and 49972/21 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.
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 applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings;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 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 and/or glass cabin during court hearings;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 45032/21 and 49972/21;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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]
19753/18
20/04/2018
Andrey Aleksandrovich ZUBAREV
1985
Cherepovets Town Court
17/01/2018
7,500
13730/19
26/02/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV
1985
Vsevolzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court
(the judgment date is unknown, proceedings and placement of the applicant in the metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged)
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, convoy cells, numerous occasions, 19/07/2017 - 22/02/2019, from the detention centres to the courthouses, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, 0.3 - 0.75 sq. m. of personal space;
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 19/07/2017 - 22/08/2022, Vsevolzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, the Second Appeal Court, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
9,750
23496/19
17/04/2019
Aleksandr Anatolyevich ILYIN
1993
Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich
St Petersburg
Leningrad Regional Court, Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region
06/02/2019
7,500
45032/21
18/01/2022
Roman Vladimirovich CHERNOKNIZHNYY
1979
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, the applicant placed in a glass cabin with metal structure measuring 3.5 m x 2 m x 2 m and holding four co-defendants (including the applicant), absence of ventilation, stagnant air, poor audibility.
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
45145/21
26/08/2021
Anton Yuryevich PILISHEK
1982
Sverdlovskiy District Court Krasnoyarsk
08/04/2021
7,500
45772/21
31/08/2021
Valeriya Aleksandrovna USTYANTSEVA
2000
Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich
Chelyabinsk
Troitsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
27/07/2021
7,500
47328/21
26/11/2021
Aleksandr Sergeyevich IVANOV
1972
Murmansk Regional Court
01/06/2021
7,500
49687/21
18/10/2021
Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELOV
1985
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged)
7,500
49972/21
07/09/2021
Aleksey Anatolyevich BELYAYEV
1979
Sosnogorst Town Court of the Republic of Komi, by way of video conference from a detention facility,
13/08/2021
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
51173/21
16/09/2021
Aleksandr Yuryevich CHICHERYUKIN
1967
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, the Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction
17/08/2021
7,500
51372/21
20/09/2021
Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZVEREV
1960
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
08/07/2021
7,500
53247/21
23/09/2021
Vladimir Vladimirovich PROSIN
1982
Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 1 of the Barabinskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region
25/08/2021
7,500
53623/21
28/12/2021
Aleksandr Alekseyevich GRIBKOV
1990
Justice of the Peace of the Severodvinsk Judicial District no. 8 of the Arkhangelsk Region
30/09/2021
7,500
55102/21
15/10/2021
Elshan Israfil ogly GULIYEV
1976
Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction
16/08/2021
7,500
55977/21
14/10/2021
Anton Vladimirovich SHISHKIN
1982
Leninskiy District Court of Kirov, Kirov Regional Court, Sixth Cassation Court
20/04/2021
7,500
56820/21
15/10/2021
Leonid Andreyevich TSAREV
1984
Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
02/09/2021
7,500
56851/21
01/03/2022
Sergey Yulyevich SOLDATOV
1975
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction
01/09/2021
7,500
57505/21
08/11/2021
Aleksey Yuryevich KURDYUKOV
1976
Chusovoy Town Court of the Perm Region
23/06/2021
7,500
5739/22
18/12/2021
Ivan Vladimirovich RUMYANTSEV
1980
Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of Yaroslavl
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
5793/22
30/12/2021
Yelena Anatolyevna VOYEVODINA
1974
Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
6401/22
10/12/2021
Valeriy Aleksandrovich KOLOMEYETS
1960
Nizhnevartovskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region - Yugra
17/06/2021
7,500
8460/22
13/01/2022
Dmitriy Georgiyevich CHUMACHENKO
1997
Pliskin Pavel Markovich
St Petersburg
Military Court of the 224 Garrison
16/07/2021
7,500
9129/22
17/01/2022
Yevgeniy Favadisovich MINYAZEV
1987
Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IVS Tosno, Leningrad Region, placement under full video surveillance on the following dates: 27/07/2021, 11/08/2021, 24/08/2021, 06/10/2021, 19/10/2021, 25/11/2021, 23/12/2021, 13/01/2022, video surveillance in a lavatory, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention: on 06/10/2021 the Leningrad Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Regions of 11/08/2021;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
8,000
9777/22
11/02/2022
Aleksey Aleksandrovich MATVEYEV
1987
Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
23/12/2021
7,500
9780/22
26/01/2022
Kamandar Dzhabir Ogly BAYRAMOV
1995
Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
7,500
10672/22
01/02/2022
Vyacheslav Igorevich VASHCHENKO
1975
Yaroslavskiy District Court of the Yaroslavl Region
24/09/2021
7,500
11064/22
03/02/2022
Nikolay Georgiyevich PECHENOV
1988
Zelenogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region
11/01/2022
7,500
35266/22
05/07/2022
Yelena Viktorovna BAZYUK
1983
Starchenko Maksim Fedorovich
Ukhta
Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi
15/04/2022
7,500
35476/22
25/04/2022
Semen Vladimirovich YATSYK
1999
Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk
31/03/2022
7,500
35481/22
29/04/2022
Yegor Sergeyevich MONAYENKOV
1987
Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court
25/04/2022
7,500
6858/23
27/01/2023
Ruslan Rustamovich SAFIN
1986
Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich
Orel
Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
(pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 20/09/2017 – ongoing at least until 16/09/2022, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, 0.16 sq. m. of personal space;
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - The applicant was detained in a remand prison from 20/09/2017 to at least 16/09/2022, on the charges of extortion; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
9,750
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy