Communicated on 4 February 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 22935/10
Andrey Alekseyevich ZVYAGIN
against Russia
lodged on 12 April 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrey Alekseyevich Zvyagin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a former head of the Moscow Institute of State and Corporate Management.
On 2 October 2007 a fire broke out in the Institute. Six people died and over thirty were injured.
On 3 October the applicant was admitted to a hospital with heart problems.
On 17 October 2007 unidentified persons allegedly threatened the applicant.
On 28 October 2007 the applicant left Russia for Israel for medical treatment.
On 8 December 2007 the applicant left Israel for Serbia, where he settled on a permanent basis.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 31 January 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of position and large-scale money‑laundering.
On 8 February 2008 the investigator sent a notification of the proceedings to the applicant.
On 13 March 2008 the applicant submitted his explanations to the investigator regarding the institution of the criminal proceedings.
On 28 May 2008 the investigator decided to initiate a search for the applicant.
The applicant challenged the investigator’s decisions of 31 January and 28 May 2008 in court.
On 15 January 2009 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found that the investigator’s decisions had been lawful.
On 25 March 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 15 January 2009 on appeal.
On 28 May 2009 charges of embezzlement (Article 160 § 4 of the Russian Criminal Code) were brought against the applicant in absentia, and on the same day the Tverskoy District Court took a decision to remand the applicant in custody. The applicant’s name was put on an international wanted list.
On 17 June 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 28 May 2009 to remand the applicant in custody.
On 19 July 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with breaching fire security regulations (Article 219 § 3 of the Criminal Code).
On 14 September 2010 the applicant was arrested in Montenegro.
On 10 October 2010 the Russian authorities lodged a request with the Montenegrin authorities to extradite the applicant to Russia for prosecution and trial under Article 160 § 4 of the Criminal Code.
On 29 December 2010 the applicant was extradited to Russia and placed in a remand prison.
On unspecified dates in 2010 a Russian national television channel broadcast several reports on the applicant’s criminal case.
On 3 March 2011 the criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 160 § 4 of the Criminal Code were joined with the criminal proceedings against him under Article 219 § 3 of the Criminal Code.
On 11 March 2011 the applicant’s lawyer contacted the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro to inform it that the applicant was being prosecuted for an offence which had not been set out in the extradition request.
On 13 July 2011 the criminal proceedings under Articles 160 § 4 and 219 § 3 of the Criminal Code were separated.
On 16 April 2012 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant and two co-defendants, under Article 160 § 4 of the Criminal Code, of large-scale embezzlement committed by an organised group involving abuse of an official position and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine.
During the trial the applicant was confined in a metal cage.
On 2 July 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 16 April 2012 on appeal.
On 29 July 2012 the applicant was transported from the remand prison to a correctional facility to serve his sentence.
In the meantime, on 15 May 2012 the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro had agreed to the applicant’s prosecution under Article 219 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.
On 12 September 2012 the applicant was transported back to the remand prison, informed of the decision of the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro of 15 May 2012 and charged with breaching fire safety regulations under Article 219 § 3 of the Criminal Code.
The case file contains no further information about the current state of those proceedings.
2. Conditions of the applicant’s transportation from the remand prison to the correctional colony
As indicated above, on 29 July 2012 the applicant was transported from the remand prison to the correctional facility.
The applicant was transported by train. He shared a compartment designed for six people with seventeen other prisoners.
In the transit remand prison in Bryansk the applicant, along with another fifty-five people, was placed for over fifteen hours in a cell measuring less than thirty square metres. The cell was not equipped with any benches.
While being escorted further to the train, the convicts were ordered to sit for over three hours in a squatting position with their hands behind their heads. The applicant alleged that this caused him a rupture of the deep veins in his leg. A medical certificate issued by the medical unit of the correctional colony on 29 August 2012 stated that the applicant was diagnosed with thrombophlebitis of the deep veins of the right lower limb and a haematoma under the skin of the right shin.
3. Civil proceedings relating to the applicant’s country house
In autumn 2006 the applicant decided to sell his country house in the Moscow Region to his colleague and co-defendant in the aforementioned criminal proceedings, Ms B. He let Ms B. settle in the property before the latter had fully paid for the house, and furnished her with all the documents relating to the property.
In October 2007 the applicant discovered that in September 2007 the ownership of the property had been transferred to Ms B. by a Ms T., who had acted under a power of attorney allegedly issued by the applicant.
In May 2008 the applicant challenged the validity of this transaction before the District Court.
On 28 October 2009 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region dismissed the applicant’s claim and found the transaction to be valid.
On 13 April 2010 the Moscow Region Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law
For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant Council of Europe and international material, see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia ([GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 55-66, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); M.S. v. Russia (no. 8589/08, §§ 64-65, 10 July 2014); and Tomov v. Russia (no. 18255/10, communicated on 7 January 2014).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his transfer from the remand prison to the correctional facility.
He further complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during his trial had been in breach of the principle of presumption of innocence.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant’s confinement in the metal cage during the hearings before the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow compatible with the principle of presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cage used to confine the applicant in the courtroom concerned.
2. Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport from the remand prison to the correctional facility such as to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) What was the overall travel time between the remand prison and the correctional facility, including the stop at the transit remand prison?
(b) How long did the train journey last from the remand prison to the transit remand prison and from the transit remand prison to the correctional facility?
(c) What were the measurements of the compartment(s) where the applicant was confined on the train?
(d) How many people were placed in the compartment(s) at the same time as the applicant?
(e) What were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the transit remand prison?
(f) The parties are further invited to comment on the applicant’s allegation as regards the convicted offenders being ordered to sit for over three hours in a squatting position with their hands behind their heads while they waited for their transport from the transit remand prison to the correctional facility.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy