14885/15;34340/17;47148/18;51636/18;1455/19

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ZHURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 14885/15 and 4 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Zhurin 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 4 July 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 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. 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 ARTICLE 3 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. 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, 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 amounted to degrading treatment. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The 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. 12.  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 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia, nos. 33707/14 and 3762/15, §§ 24-38, 10 April 2018, concerning detention on remand of those suspected or accused of offences committed in the sphere of business activities; and Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146‑55, 30 July 2009, regarding the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in breach of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 13.  The applicant in application no. 14885/15 also complained that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his grievance under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. 14.  In view of the findings in paragraphs 8-10 above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). 15.  In applications nos. 51636/18, 47148/18 and 1455/19 the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 16.  The Court has examined these 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. 17.  It follows that this part of the above applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 18.  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 it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicants and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, finds that it is not necessary to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in courtroom in application no. 14885/15, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos.  51636/18, 47148/18 and 1455/19 as inadmissible; 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; 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 (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 September 2024, 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 non-pecuniary damages per applicant (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for cost and expenses per applicant (in euros)[2]     14885/15 17/03/2015 Petr Olegovich ZHURIN Fedoseyev Viktor Viktorovich Moscow Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (video link) 13/04/2018 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 17/09/2014 to 05/10/2017: fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; persistent reliance on the nature of the charges; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation in so far as it reduces the risks of collusion or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand; economic crime;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention orders of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow issued on 18/09/2014 and 13/11/2014 were upheld by the Moscow City Court on 29/10/2014 and 19/01/2015, respectively,   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - no grounds to claim compensation at the domestic level for the violations of Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4         9,750 -     34340/17 18/04/2017           AND     51636/18 18/10/2018 Aleksey Aleksandrovich TARASOV   Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Supreme Court of Russia (video link) 16/11/2018 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 03/04/2013 to 05/02/2018, Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan: collective detention orders, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions in transit cells, transport by prison van between 10/06/2016 and 31/07/2018: applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding (0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, constant electric light 9,750       47148/18 25/09/2018 Andrey Sergeyevich MOROZOV Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Supreme Court of Russia (video link) 16/11/2018 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions in transit cells, transport by prison van between 10/06/2016 and 31/07/2018: applicant transported on numerous occasions overcrowding (0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, constant electric light   8,500     1455/19 19/12/2018 Albert Petrovich KOSHKIN Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg Supreme Court of Russia (video link) 16/11/2018 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions in transit cells, transport by prison van between 10/06/2016 and 31/07/2018: applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding (0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space), no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, constant electric light 8,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.