Přehled

Text rozhodnutí
Datum rozhodnutí
18.4.2024
Rozhodovací formace
Významnost
3
Číslo stížnosti / sp. zn.

Rozsudek

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF VOLOGDIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 60802/19 and 46 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

18 April 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Vologdin 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 28 March 2024,

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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

  1. JOINDER 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.

  1. 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, §§ 6873, 17 January 2023).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom

7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage 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.”

Some applicants also complained that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievance under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which reads 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. 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, no. 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.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question), 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 amounted to degrading treatment.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

11. In view of the above findings under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

  1. 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 the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly illfounded 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 well-established case law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 10308 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaints about conditions of transport; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, concerning administrative detention beyond the three hours’ time-limit; Krestovskiy v. Russia, no. 14040/03, 28 October 2010, concerning the lack of a public hearing; and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, concerning refusal of long-term family visits in remand prisons).

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

13. Mr Rud (application no. 22446/20) also raised additional complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

14. The Court has examined the complaints 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, they 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. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 11726/20 and 55085/21 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,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it, as well as the complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table) admissible, and the remaining complaints raised in application no. 22446/20 inadmissible;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;
  5. 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 the appended table);
  6. Holds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in courtrooms;
  7. 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. 11726/20 and 55085/21;
  8. 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 18 April 2024, 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/Final date of placement in a cage

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

60802/19

15/11/2019

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich VOLOGDIN

1986

Petrov Roman Nikolayevich

Cheboksary

Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar and Krasnodar Regional Court, Videolink from SIZO-1, Krasnodar Region

16/07/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Inadequate conditions of transport in a van, train and transit cells between 22/08/2019-02/09/2019 with 0.3 m² per inmate, no ventilation, inadequate temperature, absence of safety belts in a van, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, passive smoking, lack or insufficient quantity of food,

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport

8,500

61036/19

19/11/2019

Grigoriy Alekseyevich SMYKOV

1983

Kolesov Stanislav Yuryevich

Slobodskoy

Leninskiy and Oktyabrskiy District Courts of Kirov

11/06/2019

7,500

64574/19

29/11/2019

Andrey Olegovich FILIPPOV

1981

Zhikova Yelena Aleksandrovna

Uray

Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region - Yugra

30/05/2019

7,500

917/20

17/12/2019

Aleksandr Viktorovich LARIN

1985

Miller Irina Vladimirovna

Kansk

Zabaykalskiy Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by videoconference from the cage of SIZO)

10/07/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by train, 10 days, 29/07/2019 - 22/08/2019; lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, poor quality of food, poor quality of potable water

8,500

1076/20

13/12/2019

Aleksandr Vasilyevich YAKUBENKOV

1995

Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod and the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, video link from SIZO1, Nizhniy Novgorod Region

03/07/2019

7,500

1840/20

12/12/2019

Sergey Vladimirovich YURIN

1975

Petrov Roman Nikolayevich

Cheboksary

Pavlovo Town Court of Nizhniy Novgorod Region (hearings in person)

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court (video link from SIZO-1 Nizhniy Novgorod, 19/09/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van in s single-occupancy cell; from 20/12/2017 to 19/08/2019; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of space;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in respect of inadequate conditions of transport

8,500

2867/20

17/12/2019

Vasiliy Ivanovich PORTNOV

1964

Miller Irina Vladimirovna

Kansk

Tungussko-Chunskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

29/07/2019

7,500

4276/20

27/01/2020

Maksim Olegovich MAKSIMOV

1984

Galtseva Margarita Valeryevna

Saratov

Balakovskiy District Court of the Saratov Region

Proceedings pending on the date of lodging the application form with the Court

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport of the applicant on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse or to take part in investigative actions; ongoing since 30/10/2019 on the date when the application form was lodged with the Court; van; restricted access to toilet; transfer lasted 2 to 3 hours; 20 to 25 inmates per van having the capacity for 16 persons

8,500

5086/20

17/12/2019

Ruslan Vladimirovich GURULEV

1980

Miller Irina Vladimirovna

Kansk

Shilkinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region and Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

16/07/2019

7,500

5301/20

21/01/2020

Yevgeniy Andreyevich STOVBA

1987

Yasman Pavel Aleksandrovich

St Petersburg

Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic

06/09/2019

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transfers in train 26/01/2017 - 23/08/2019 on numerous occasions, between Pechora and Vorkuta; overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m per person, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet

8,500

6979/20

29/01/2020

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich PONOMAREV

1985

Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich

Astrakhan

Akhtubinsk District Court (metal cages during court hearings)

Astrakhan Regional Court (video link from SIZO-1, Astrakhan Region)

15/08/2019

7,500

8496/20

27/01/2020

Anatoliy Anatolyevich UGDYZHEKOV

1979

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich LOSEV

1974

Tutachikov Vladimir Nikolayevich

Askiz

Askiz District Court of Khakasiya Republic

01/08/2019

7,500

8635/20

30/01/2020

Roman Alekseyevich KOLPASHCHIKOV

2000

Yezhov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich

Velikiy Novgorod

Novgorodskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region

01/08/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - multiple accounts of transport in vans and transit cells (12/04/2019-01/08/2019) with lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food, passive smoking;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

8,500

8706/20

30/01/2020

David Grigoryevich NAZAROV

1985

Myltsyn Dmitriy Andreyevich

Moscow

Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow

Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court

7,500

11726/20

06/02/2020

Aleksey Mikhaylovich NEMOLYAYEV

1980

Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich

Krasnoyarsk

Krasnodar Regional Court;

Supreme Court of Russia

20/08/2020

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.

14041/20

04/03/2020

Valentin Aleksandrovich DATSKO

1995

Fedotova Yuliya

Yekaterinburg

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar and Krasnodar Regional Court

10/09/2019

7,500

14372/20

27/02/2020

(6 applicants)

Asim Rasim-ogly AKHMEDOV

1985

Sergey Aleksandrovich SLEPTSOV

1984

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich NABIULLIN

1987

Vladislav Fridovich BAYAZITOV

1971

Yakub Ilgarovich VELIYEV

1988

Aleksandr Sergeyevich KISILEV

1989

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich

Moscow

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Video link from unspecified SIZO

03/09/2019

Art. 8 (1) - lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits - impossibility to have long family visits for 6 years in the remand prison due to the general policy; complaint raised also by each of the applicants

9,750

14657/20

04/03/2020

Sergey Vladimirovich VASILYEV

1969

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich

Orel

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan

05/11/2019

7,500

19365/20

18/03/2020

Oleg Vladimirovich MALTSEV

1975

Sergeyeva Yelizaveta Alekseyevna

Tyumen

Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen

23/09/2019

7,500

20594/20

23/04/2020

Vladislav Timofeyevich NAVITSKIY

1999

Sergeyeva Yelizaveta Alekseyevna

Tyumen

Niznevartovsk Town Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region Yugra

13/01/2020

7,500

20892/20

20/02/2020

Andrey Vasilyevich SEMKOVICH

1981

Mironova Tatyana Sergeyevna

St Petersburg

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City court

11/09/2019

7,500

21278/20

04/05/2020

Vasiliy Yuryevich POVALYAKHIN

1984

Kipkaylov Yevgeniy Sergeyevich

Rostov na Donu

Azov Town Court of the Rostov Region

Rostov Regional Court; Video link from unspecified SIZO; 06/03/2020 and 03/04/2020

7,500

21640/20

06/04/2020

Nikita Vladimirovich NEARONOV

1996

Lashin Sergey Vadimovich

Yekaterinburg

Leninskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk

23/12/2019

7,500

21662/20

17/04/2020

Maksim Mikhaylovich BATISHCHEV

1989

Semiguzova Alana Vladimirovna

Chita

Moguchanskiy District Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region and Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

22/10/2019

7,500

22446/20

25/12/2019

Boris Mikhaylovich RUD

1974

Arko Olga Andreyevna

St Petersburg

Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg and Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg;

St Petersburg City Court; video link from SIZO-3, Leningrad Region

16/12/2019

7,500

22886/20

30/04/2020

Sergey Olegovich IGNATYEV

1994

Varava Valentina Yuryevna

Pskov

Detention in a metal cage during the trial hearing held in the courtroom of the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov

17/03/2020

7,500

24637/20

06/05/2020

Sergey Mikhaylovich MONOGOV

1977

Yesina Tatyana Robertovna

Sevastopol

Kirovskiy District Court of Khabarovsk

Video link from IK-6, Khabarovsk Region

03/12/2019

7,500

28418/20

07/06/2020

Sarvan Ismail ogly GASANOV

1988

Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich

Astrakhan

Kirovskiy Disgtrict Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court

Video link from an unidentified facility

19/03/2020

7,500

29121/20

13/07/2020

Andrey Aleksandrovich PROZOROV

1991

Kravchenko Sergey Anatolyevich

Khanty-Mansiysk

Nyagan Town Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region - Yugra

22/11/2019

7,500

29227/20

16/06/2020

Yegor Mikhaylovich KAYMASHNIKOV

1993

Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Moscow City Court, by way of videoconference from the detention facility

12/12/2019

7,500

29402/20

16/06/2020

Sergey Aleksandrovich FEDOTOV

1978

Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Moscow City Court, video link from SIZO-4, Moscow

12/12/2019

7,500

30915/20

16/06/2020

Aleksandr Valeryevich KONDRATYEV

1984

Lyubimkin Sergey Ivanovich

Nizhniy Novgorod

Moscow City Court

12/12/2019

7,500

32058/20

21/07/2020

Vladimir Valeryevich TSYGANOV

1976

Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich

Abakan

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

27/02/2020

Art. 6 (1) - trial in camera - hearings both before the trial court (Krasnoyarsk Regional Court) and the appeal court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) were held in camera

9,750

34443/20

30/05/2020

Yelena Yevgenyevna ROMANOVA

1982

Pavlenko Tatyana Nodariyevna

St Petersburg

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; Video link from SIZO-5, Leningrad Region; 25/12/2019

4,450

35432/20

23/07/2020

Sergey Viktorovich MELNIKOV

1976

Kritskaya Olga Innokentyevna

Krasnoyarsk

Sverdlovskiy District and Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

24/01/2020

7,500

36405/20

17/08/2020

Irina Vsevolodovna KLEMENTYEVA

1963

Makarova Marina Vladimirovna

Strasbourg

Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Region

Video link from SIZO, Chuvashia Region

10/12/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van (SIZO-2 Chuvashia Republic (Tsivilsk) - IVS Cheboksary - Leninskiy District Court) 10 occasions between 17/07/2019 and 19/12/2019; cramped individual compartments, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet; transfers lasted from 3 to 4 hours; personal space afforded was 0.3 to 0.6 sq. m;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

8,500

36744/20

03/08/2020

Pavel Aleksandrovich MATYAKIN

1987

Baygildeyev Rustam Rashitovich

Moscow

Abdulinskiy District Court, the Orenburg Regional Court

06/11/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant complained of unlawful detention on 22/03/2020 as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO)

9,750

40832/20

27/08/2020

Aleksandr Viktorovich POLUYAN

1977

Blinov Artem Igorevich

Rostov-na-Donu

Rostov Regional Court, Video link from SIZO-1, Rostov Region

26/06/2020

7,500

43264/20

02/09/2020

Sergey Gennadyevich MARIN

1977

Avanesyan Aleksey Viktorovich

Yekaterinburg

Belorechenskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region, Krasnodar Regional Court

30/07/2020

7,500

44610/20

12/09/2020

Kamil Boreyevich SHAMSUTDINOV

1980

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich

Moscow

Chelyabinsk Regional Court and Seventh Court of Cassation, video link from SIZO-1, Chelyabinsk Region

12/12/2019

7,500

51338/20

05/11/2020

Igor Nikolayevich BELSKIY

1987

Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich

Cheboksary

Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary/Supreme Court of Chuvashia

06/05/2020

7,500

53337/20

12/11/2020

Yuriy Vitalyevich MURZUKOV

1967

Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich

Cheboksary

Novocheboksarsk Town Court and the Supreme Court of the Chuvashia Republic

13/05/2020

7,500

293/21

23/11/2020

Oleg Vladimirovich KORCHUGANOV

1986

Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich

Nea Skiony

the Chernogorsk Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia

19/03/2019

the applicant lodged a complaint with a court about the use of a metal cage; final decision by the Supreme Court of Russia issued on 30/07/2020

7,500

1035/21

23/11/2020

Oleg Anatolyevich MAGADEYEV

1980

Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich

Nea Skiony

Chitinskiy District Court of the Zabaykalsk Region; Zabaykalsk Regional Court

25/05/2020

7,500

1180/21

14/12/2020

Aleksandr Valeryevich BAKAYEV

1990

Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

the 4th Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction

16/06/2020

7,500

3412/21

09/12/2020

Lyudmila Gennadyevna BUSHUYEVA

1987

Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

Moscow City Court

10/06/2020

7,500

55085/21

18/10/2021

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY

1983

Dunayeva Alla Igorevna

Chelyabinsk

Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Regional Court

16/06/2022

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Kalininskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk on 29/03/2022; appeal decision by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court on 16/06/2022; lack of speediness of review of detention (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2012)

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.


[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.