Communicated on 24 January 2020
Published on 10 February 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 73011/14
Andrey Nyaimovich SYAFUKOV against Russia
and 8 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. They complain, in particular, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about the impact their confinement in metal cages or protective glass cabins before the courts during the criminal proceedings against them had on the fairness of those proceedings, namely, their right to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance. The applicants outline the following issues: (a) absence of a desk or another flat surface for reading documents or taking notes, (b) poor audibility inside glass cabins, (c) impossibility to have confidential exchange with counsel (convoy officers and bailiffs within earshot throughout the trial and during court breaks). The applicants raised the above issues before appellate courts, but to no avail. The individual circumstances and complaints of each applicant are summarised in the appendix below.
The applicants in applications nos. 5903/15, 67503/17 and 35275/19 also raised other complaints, subject of well-established case-law of the Court, which are summarised in the appendix below.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to each applicant’s specific allegations, did he have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and/or (c) of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Taking into account the conditions in which each of the applicants was held during the trial (metal cage or glass cabin):
(i) Was he afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Was he provided with sufficient space? Was he provided with a desk or equivalent facilities to peruse documents and to take notes (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 151-53, 4 October 2016)?
(ii) Was the applicant able to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Did the acoustics inside the glass cabin allow the applicant to follow the course of the trial and participate effectively in the proceedings? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with counsel? Was the applicant able to confer privately with counsel during the trial (see Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§ 151-53, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 642-48, 25 July 2013)?
(b) In the cases of Mr Syafukov and Mr Makovchuk, were the applicants afforded an opportunity to confer privately with their counsel in the remand prison during the preparation of the trial? What were the arrangements for the applicants’ consultations with their counsel at the remand prison?
(c) In Mr Suldin’s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to study the case file at the stage of the preparation of his appeal?
(d) In Mr Boychenko’s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to confer privately with his lawyer before the appeal hearing of his criminal case?
2. The Government may, if they so wish, submit comments on the other complaints raised by the applicants which are the subject of the Court’s well-established case-law.
APPENDIX
No.
Application No.
Applicant name,
date of birth,
place of residence
Date of introduction
Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins
before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial
under Article 6 of the Convention
Other complaints under
the well-established case-law
73011/14
Andrey
Nyaimovich
SYAFUKOV
06/05/1977
Saransk
07/11/2014
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)
(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)
74193/14
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich MAKOVCHUK
15/09/1975
Uyar
05/11/2014
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)
(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)
5903/15
Dmitriy
Alekseyevich CHEBOTAREV
28/01/1984
Kopeysk
09/12/2014
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage
(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi of 23/06/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10/07/15)
Articles 3, 6 § 2: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial
7265/16
Sergey
Nikolayevich
TOROPOV
14/03/1955
Kokhma
17/12/2015
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): the glass cabin where the applicant was confined throughout the trial muffled the sound of the words spoken in the courtroom and prevented the applicant, suffering from chronic hearing impairment, from effectively participating in the proceedings
(judgment of the Ivanovo Regional Court of 21/10/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 19/05/15, copy of the appeal decision received by the applicant on 14/07/15, court stamp)
No.
Application No.
Applicant name,
date of birth,
place of residence
Date of introduction
Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins
before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial
under Article 6 of the Convention
Other complaints under
the well-established case-law
67503/17
Islam
Saydaliyevich TASHUYEV
07/08/1985
Zelenyy
04/09/2017
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b): lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes during the trial due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage
(judgment of the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow of 02/12/16, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/17)
Articles 3 and 13: conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO-5 in Moscow (28/06/16 – 25/03/17, 1,6 m² per inmate, lack of sleeping places, poor sanitary conditions, poor ventilation, poor heating and cooling systems)
Articles 3 and 13: conditions of transport between SIZO-5 and correctional colony IK-8 in the Tambov Region (railway, 25 March 2017)
48780/18
Oleg
Gennadyevich ANTONOV
17/08/1971
Moscow
29/09/2018
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin, poor audibility inside the cabin
(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)
28069/19
Vladimir
Aleksandrovich
SULDIN
11/10/1976
Simferopol
14/05/2019
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin, poor audibility inside the cabin; denial of the right to study the case file for the preparation of the appeal
(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)
No.
Application No.
Applicant name,
date of birth,
place of residence
Date of introduction
Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins
before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial
under Article 6 of the Convention
Other complaints under
the well-established case-law
32506/19
Vitaliy
Afanasyevich
KUTSAR
10/06/1974
Moscow
14/05/2019
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin, poor audibility inside the cabin
(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/18)
35275/19
Vitaliy
Olegovich BOYCHENKO
03/06/1993
Kherson
03/06/2019
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of and the scarce space inside the metal cage (5 co-defendants held in the cage measuring 1,05 m²), lack of possibility to have confidential exchange with counsel at the appeal stage
(judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan of 13/11/18, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/19)
Article 3: conditions of transport between the remand prison SIZO-1 of the Republic of Tatarstan and the courthouse (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)
Article 3: conditions of confinement at the convoy premises of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)
Articles 3: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial and preparation of the appeal (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy