19753/18;13730/19;23496/19;45032/21;45145/21;45772/21;47328/21;49687/21;49972/21;51173/21;51372/21;53247/21;53623/21;55102/21;55977/21;56820/21;56851/21;57505/21;5739/22;5793/22;6401/22;8460/22;9129/22;9777/22;9780/22;10672/22;11064/22;35266/22;35476/22;35481/22;6858/23

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ZUBAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19753/18 and 30 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zubarev 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 2 November 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 and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them 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 and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 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. 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.  The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom). 10.  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 and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 12.  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 13.  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. 14.  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; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; and 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  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.” 16.  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 the finding of a violation in applications nos. 45032/21 and 49972/21 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, 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 applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings; 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 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 and/or glass cabin during court hearings; 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. 45032/21 and 49972/21; 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 23 November 2023, 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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     19753/18 20/04/2018 Andrey Aleksandrovich ZUBAREV     Cherepovets Town Court 17/01/2018   7,500     13730/19 26/02/2019 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ZAYTSEV     Vsevolzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court (the judgment date is unknown, proceedings and placement of the applicant in the metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged) Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, convoy cells, numerous occasions, 19/07/2017 - 22/02/2019, from the detention centres to the courthouses, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, 0.3 - 0.75 sq. m. of personal space;   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 19/07/2017 - 22/08/2022, Vsevolzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, the Second Appeal Court, failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 9,750     23496/19 17/04/2019 Aleksandr Anatolyevich ILYIN Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg Leningrad Regional Court, Vyborg Town Court of the Leningrad Region 06/02/2019         7,500     45032/21 18/01/2022 Roman Vladimirovich CHERNOKNIZHNYY     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, the applicant placed in a glass cabin with metal structure measuring 3.5 m x 2 m x 2 m and holding four co-defendants (including the applicant), absence of ventilation, stagnant air, poor audibility. (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     45145/21 26/08/2021 Anton Yuryevich PILISHEK     Sverdlovskiy District Court Krasnoyarsk 08/04/2021   7,500     45772/21 31/08/2021 Valeriya Aleksandrovna USTYANTSEVA Urychev Aleksandr Vitalyevich Chelyabinsk Troitsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region 27/07/2021   7,500     47328/21 26/11/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich IVANOV     Murmansk Regional Court 01/06/2021   7,500     49687/21 18/10/2021 Aleksandr Vladimirovich BELOV     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged)   7,500     49972/21 07/09/2021 Aleksey Anatolyevich BELYAYEV     Sosnogorst Town Court of the Republic of Komi, by way of video conference from a detention facility, 13/08/2021   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction   51173/21 16/09/2021 Aleksandr Yuryevich CHICHERYUKIN     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, the Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 17/08/2021   7,500   51372/21 20/09/2021 Aleksandr Vasilyevich ZVEREV     Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region 08/07/2021   7,500   53247/21 23/09/2021 Vladimir Vladimirovich PROSIN     Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 1 of the Barabinskiy District of the Novosibirsk Region 25/08/2021   7,500   53623/21 28/12/2021 Aleksandr Alekseyevich GRIBKOV     Justice of the Peace of the Severodvinsk Judicial District no. 8 of the Arkhangelsk Region 30/09/2021   7,500   55102/21 15/10/2021 Elshan Israfil ogly GULIYEV     Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 16/08/2021   7,500   55977/21 14/10/2021 Anton Vladimirovich SHISHKIN     Leninskiy District Court of Kirov, Kirov Regional Court, Sixth Cassation Court 20/04/2021   7,500   56820/21 15/10/2021 Leonid Andreyevich TSAREV     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 02/09/2021   7,500   56851/21 01/03/2022 Sergey Yulyevich SOLDATOV     Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appeal Court of General Jurisdiction 01/09/2021   7,500   57505/21 08/11/2021 Aleksey Yuryevich KURDYUKOV       Chusovoy Town Court of the Perm Region 23/06/2021   7,500   5739/22 18/12/2021 Ivan Vladimirovich RUMYANTSEV     Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of Yaroslavl (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   5793/22 30/12/2021 Yelena Anatolyevna VOYEVODINA     Cherepovets Town Court of the Vologda Region (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   6401/22 10/12/2021 Valeriy Aleksandrovich KOLOMEYETS     Nizhnevartovskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region - Yugra 17/06/2021   7,500   8460/22 13/01/2022 Dmitriy Georgiyevich CHUMACHENKO Pliskin Pavel Markovich St Petersburg Military Court of the 224 Garrison 16/07/2021   7,500   9129/22 17/01/2022 Yevgeniy Favadisovich MINYAZEV     Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IVS Tosno, Leningrad Region, placement under full video surveillance on the following dates: 27/07/2021, 11/08/2021, 24/08/2021, 06/10/2021, 19/10/2021, 25/11/2021, 23/12/2021, 13/01/2022, video surveillance in a lavatory, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - lack of speediness of review of detention: on 06/10/2021 the Leningrad Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Regions of 11/08/2021;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities   8,000   9777/22 11/02/2022 Aleksey Aleksandrovich MATVEYEV     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 23/12/2021   7,500   9780/22 26/01/2022 Kamandar Dzhabir Ogly BAYRAMOV     Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   10672/22 01/02/2022 Vyacheslav Igorevich VASHCHENKO     Yaroslavskiy District Court of the Yaroslavl Region 24/09/2021   7,500   11064/22 03/02/2022 Nikolay Georgiyevich PECHENOV     Zelenogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 11/01/2022   7,500   35266/22 05/07/2022 Yelena Viktorovna BAZYUK Starchenko Maksim Fedorovich Ukhta Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi 15/04/2022   7,500   35476/22 25/04/2022 Semen Vladimirovich YATSYK     Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 31/03/2022   7,500   35481/22 29/04/2022 Yegor Sergeyevich MONAYENKOV     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 25/04/2022             7,500   6858/23 27/01/2023 Ruslan Rustamovich SAFIN Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 20/09/2017 – ongoing at least until 16/09/2022, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, 0.16 sq. m. of personal space;   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - The applicant was detained in a remand prison from 20/09/2017 to at least 16/09/2022, on the charges of extortion; failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand 9,750     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.