15304/19;1739/20;40664/20;50736/21;53112/21;58425/21;58434/21;58665/21;58731/21;59214/21;59559/21;59575/21;59729/21;60502/21;60503/21;60504/21;60505/21;60844/21;61017/21;61023/21;61081/21;61378/21;61384/21;61390/21;61592/21;61654/21;111/22;179/22;180/22;466/22;597/22;613/22;793/22;835/22;985/22;1077/22;2243/22;2245/22;2246/22;2247/22

SECOND SECTION CASE OF YELISEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 15304/19 and 39 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 2 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Yeliseyeva 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 12 October 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 in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them and/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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 ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them and/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. 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 been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading 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 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.  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 and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 11.  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 12.  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. 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; 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; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, §§ 101-12, 4 July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections. It further concludes that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in application no. 50736/21. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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.” 14.  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 it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 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 complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as set out in the appended table), admissible and finds that that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in application no. 50736/21; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols 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 during court hearings; 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2023, 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     15304/19 04/03/2019 Olesya Viktorovna YELISEYEVA Yezerskiy Aleksey Vladimirovich Samara Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court 04/09/2018   7,500     1739/20 18/12/2019 Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN   Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi date of the relevant judgment unspecified;   Supreme Court of Russia 18/06/2019 1st applicant;   Supreme Court of Russia 26/03/2020 2nd applicant;   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Court of Appeal, Third Cassation Court 23/06/2021 2nd applicant;   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appeal Court, Third Cassation Court, Supreme Court of Russia 19/07/2021;   Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 28/02/2022 1st applicant     7,500     40664/20 24/02/2021 Vitaliy Valeryevich KOTCHENKO     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appeal Court 10/06/2021   7,500     50736/21 04/10/2021 Ilya Mikhaylovich TONKIKH     Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi 29/07/2021 Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IZ-1 Republic of Komi (detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators) from 06/01/2021 to 02/09/2021;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities;   Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - Impossibility for the applicant as a prisoner to vote in elections, including elections to the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament on 19/09//2021   7,500     53112/21 06/10/2021 Viktor Nikolayevich SHCHEGLOV       Kupinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 17/05/2021   7,500     58425/21 28/10/2021 Eduard Vyacheslavovich NIKOLAYEV     Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 13/07/2021   7,500     58434/21 01/11/2021 Sergey Konstantinovich SHMELEV     Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 05/07/2021   7,500     58665/21 03/11/2021 Anvar Urazgaleyevich KALDAMANOV     Onega Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region 20/10/2021   7,500     58731/21 11/11/2021 Takhir Rashitovich AKHMETSHIN     St Petersburg Second Appellate Court 13/07/2021   7,500   59214/21 11/11/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich GUSHCHIN     Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirov Region 29/09/2021   7,500   59559/21 22/10/2021 Aleksandr Ivanovich DEVYATOV     Argayashskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 06/08/2021   7,500   59575/21 21/01/2022 Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BESSONOV     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 29/12/2021   7,500   59729/21 16/02/2022 Nikolay Sergeyevich KLEMETS     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/12/2021   7,500   60502/21 20/11/2021 Pavel Vladimirovich AGAFUROV     Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court 30/07/2021   7,500   60503/21 07/11/2021 Olga Aleksandrovna LOGINOVA     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 17/05/2021   7,500   60504/21 17/11/2021 Maksim Vadimovich TROFIMENKO     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd Since 06/07/2021 - end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged   7,500   60505/21 25/11/2021 Fenil Minnereisovich SMENOV     Batyrevskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 19/08/2021   7,500   60844/21 29/11/2021 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ARTEYEV     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 31/05/2021   7,500   61017/21 25/02/2022 Nikita Sergeyevich FEDOROV     Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov 17/02/2022   7,500   61023/21 17/02/2022 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KUZMINYKH     Sovetsk Town Court of the Kirov Region 13/12/2021   7,500   61081/21 29/11/2021 Vitaliy Valentinovich OVCHINNIKOV     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 24/08/2021   7,500   61378/21 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Leonidovich SAFRONOV     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 28/07/2021   7,500   61384/21 23/11/2021 Anton Alekseyevich MOKROUSOV     Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 15/06/2021   7,500   61390/21 30/11/2021 Maksim Vladimirovich SHADRIN     Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk 29/07/2021   Novosibirsk Regional Court 13/09/2021   7,500   61592/21 07/12/2021 Nikolay Nikolayevich BOGOLYUBOV Korneyev Aleksey Igorevich Bryansk Leninskiy District Court of Kursk 24/06/2021   7,500   61654/21 04/12/2021 Faridun Yatimovich DOSTIYEV     Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan, Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 08/09/2021   7,500   111/22 22/11/2021 Roman Nikolayevich STARKOV     Justice of the Peace of the 70-th Judicial District of Kirov 03/08/2021   7,500   179/22 13/12/2021 Denis Aleksandrovich RYZHOV     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 15/06/2021 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train, from 28/10/2021 to 20/12/2021, 0.2-0.4 sq. m. of personal space, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 8,500   180/22 07/12/2021 Denis Vladimirovich FADEYEV     Kazan Garrison Military Court 21/06/2021 Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IZ-1 Republic of Tatarstan, 13/03/2021-16/07/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators 7,500   466/22 30/11/2021 Aleksey Alekseyevich DYUZHEV Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd 25/10/2021     7,500   597/22 23/11/2021 Albert Dinariyevich SAYFULLIN Khaziyeva Elvira Ilgizovna Almetyevsk Supreme Court of Russia 02/09/2021   7,500   613/22 14/03/2022 Sergey Viktorovich OKHAPKIN     Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov 09/03/2022     7,500   793/22 20/12/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MATYASKIN Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Sovetskiy District Court of Samara, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan 27/07/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention in custody from 27/04/2017 to 27/07/2021, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial 9,750   835/22 26/11/2021 Denis Gennadyevich KRUGLYANIN     Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court since 28/11/2017 - end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - detention since 28/11/2017 and ongoing at the time when the application was lodged with the Court. Specific defects: as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint 9,750   985/22 15/12/2021 Sergey Vladimirovich YEGOROV Panshina Yelena Nikolayevna Moscow Moscow City Court 16/06/2021   7,500   1077/22 15/12/2021 Aleksandr Yuryevich GONCHAROV     Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi 29/06/2021     7,500   2243/22 13/12/2021 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich AGAFONOV       Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 15/06/2021   7,500   2245/22 10/12/2021 Denis Aleksandrovich SOLOVYEV     Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 18/06/2021   7,500   2246/22 13/12/2021 Marat Radifovich KHANNANOV     Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan 30/09/2021   7,500   2247/22 21/12/2021 Grigoriy Aleksandrovich ZINOVYEV     Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 03/08/2021   Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 21/01/2022   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.