1893/19;51431/21;53123/21

THIRD SECTION CASE OF SHAKHMAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 1893/19 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 18 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Shakhman and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Ioannis Ktistakis, President,  Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,  Diana Kovatcheva, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 June 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. They 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 7.  The applicants complained principally under Article 3 of the Convention about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. 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. 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.  Mr Sadkov (application no. 51431/21) 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 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 Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by some applicants under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.  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 the facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the applicants’ placement in a metal cage in courtrooms and the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised by the applicants under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom; 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 the 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis  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/End date of the applicant’s placement in a metal cage in courtrooms Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     1893/19 29/12/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich SHAKHMAN Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow,   Moscow City Court   30/07/2018   7,500     51431/21 27/12/2021 Vladislav Viktorovich SADKOV     Ust-Katav Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region,   Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region   16/12/2021 Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - Multiple periods of detention between 23/08/2019 and 17/12/2021; IVS (temporary detention ward) in Ust-Katav, Chelyabinsk Region, and Tosno, Leningrad Region - detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 7,500     53123/21 29/11/2021 Nikita Sergeyevich PARFENOV     Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov 08/06/2021   7,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.