64304/19;279/20;948/20;1442/20;2316/20;2434/20;2437/20;3478/20;4589/20;4697/20;5709/20;6096/20;6537/20;6788/20;6845/20;7382/20;8166/20;8187/20;8199/20;8226/20;8610/20;9320/20;9395/20;9714/20;10354/20;10886/20;10905/20;11540/20;11593/20;12002/20;12170/20;12217/20;12517/20;13305/20;13591/20;13699/20;13890/20;14312/20;16840/20;17226/20;18419/20;18604/20;19313/20;19575/20;20623/20;20634/20;20979/20;21271/20

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 64304/19 and 47 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 July 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mamin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Peeter Roosma, President,  Ioannis Ktistakis,  Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 May 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 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. 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. 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, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility (taking also into account the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022) 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). 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 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 well-established case-law (see 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; 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; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 73-75, 18 July 2013, as regards detention in the absence of a court order following the quashing of the conviction by a superior court; and Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention). remaining complaints 13.  Lastly, having examined the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention lodged by Mr Timergaliyev (application no. 7382/20) in respect of the conditions of his detention in a remand prison pending the criminal proceedings against him, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining these complaints for the reasons set out below. 14.  The Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. He is no longer detained in the conditions complained of. It further notes that it was open to the applicant to make resort to a new compensatory remedy, introduced by the Russian Federation on 27 January 2020, in respect of his complaints concerning the conditions of detention in breach of the national legislation (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020). 15.  Regard being had to its findings in Shmelev and Others (cited above) that the said remedy presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for redress and offers reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 54), and having regard to the fact that, after the transfer from the remand prison, the applicant did not inform the Court of any further developments in his case, the Court considers it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine. 16.  Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 17.  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. 3478/20 and 9395/20 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 complaints about to the applicants’ placement in the metal cages in courtrooms and other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (as laid down in the appended table) admissible and decides to strike the part of application no. 7382/20 out of its list of cases, as regards the complaints about poor conditions of detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; 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 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 courtroom; 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. 3478/20 and 9395/20; 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 4 July 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Peeter Roosma  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   Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment or date of the end of the relevant period Other complaints under  well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     64304/19 18/11/2019 Roman Ibragimovich MAMIN Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 30/05/2019   7,500     279/20 11/02/2020 Artem Valeryevich LUTOSHKIN Leninskiy District Court of Kirov; Kirov Regional Court 20/08/2019   Kirov Regional Court; Video Link from SIZO-2, Kirov Region 20/08/2019   7,500     948/20 06/04/2020 Pavel Nikolayevich IVANOV Ust-Abakanskiy District Court of the Khakassia Republic 30/01/2020   7,500     1442/20 02/03/2020 Konstantin Vladimirovich YEFREMOV Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 30/01/2020   7,500     2316/20 17/12/2019 Ilya Valeryevich MOKSHIN Novosibirsk Regional Court and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by way of videoconference from the courtroom of the Novosibirsk Regional Court, while being placed in a metal cage) 01/08/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train (Novosibirsk - Krasnoyarsk); 24/09/2019 - 25/09/2019; insufficient number of sleeping places 8,500     2434/20 22/11/2019 Aleksey Anatolyevich BURKOV Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 28/05/2019 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 - in a van and train between 25/06/2019 - 27/06/2019 with 0.2 m² per inmate, overcrowding, absence of safety belts by van, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, no ventilation, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet 8,500     2437/20 23/12/2019 Nikita Sergeyevich MURASHEV Vorkuta Town Court 01/07/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 0.2 m2 of personal space, overcrowding, transport on numerous occasions from the detention facility from 02/08/2018 to 27/02/2020; train, 0.4 m2 of personal space, overcrowding, no individual speeling place, transport in the period 15-17/12/2020 from SIZO-3 Komi Republic to IK-25 Komi Republic;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 5,400     3478/20 31/12/2019 Yelena Vladimirovna MEDVEDEVA Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court 11/12/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 16/10/2019 and 11/12/2019 in a single occupancy compartment of prison vans (insufficient personal space of 0.3 sq. m) The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.     4589/20 24/12/2019 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich DRYUPIN Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 31/10/2019   7,500   4697/20 09/01/2020 Aleksandr Villisovich SHTULBERG Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 09/07/2019   7,500   5709/20 07/01/2020 Rakhim Ablikimovich KASYMOV Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Region 30/09/2019   7,500   6096/20 31/03/2020 Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 05/02/2020   5,500   6537/20 27/12/2019 Nikita Fedorovich CHMYR Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic 01/07/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 02/08/2018-26/12//2019, van and transit cells in the courthouse; applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or inadequate furniture, passive smoking; 20/08/2021- 04/12/2021, train, 0.36-0.57 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, 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   6788/20 11/01/2020 Dmitriy Alekseyevich GROMOV Moscow City Court, Video link from SIZO-2, Moscow 11/07/2019   7,500   6845/20 09/01/2020 Nikolay Vladimirovich BRYLEV Chernovskiy District Court of Chita 15/10/2019   7,500   7382/20 13/12/2019 Anvar Magnaviyevich TIMERGALIYEV Pechora Town Court of the Komi Republic 15/07/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transport by rail from Vorkuta to Pechora on multiple occasions, from 30/11/2018 ongoing on the date when the applicant was lodged with the court; overcrowded compartments     7,500   8166/20 04/12/2019 Andrey Germanovich BOVTALOV       Novosibirsk Regional Court 13/06/2019   7,500   8187/20 15/12/2019 Sergey Valeryevich NASYROV Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court 04/12/2019 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 - numerous occasions of transport by van between the detention facility and the courthouse from 31/03/2016 to 09/08/2021; 0.2 sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding. Transfers lasted 2 to 3 hours 8,500   8199/20 09/01/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich GOLOVIN Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 01/02/2020   7,500   8226/20 25/01/2020 Ruslan Valeryevich SOROKIN Video link from SIZO-2, Kirov Region 19/09/2019   3,000   8610/20 17/01/2020 Oleg Vladislavovich YERMAKOV Vygonichskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region; Bryansk Regional Court, video link from SIZO-1, Bryansk 17/07/2019   7,500   9320/20 29/01/2020 Vladimir Nikolayevich STASENKOV Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (by way of videoconference from a metal cage) and in the Penza Regional Court 06/08/2019   7,500   9395/20 11/02/2020 Erik Iskoyevich MIRZOYAN Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court (by way of video conference from a metal cage) 09/12/2019 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - detention without any court order from 01/11/2019 to 15/11/2019 - Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court’s omission to rule on the issue following the quashing of the conviction;   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order of 15/11/2019 was reviewed only on 09/12/2019 The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction.   9714/20 05/02/2020 Maksim Yevgenyevich ZAYTSEV Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 26/08/2019   7,500   10354/20 08/02/2020 Nikita Vladimirovich CHENTSOV Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court Video link from SIZO-4, Moscow 08/08/2019   7,500   10886/20 30/03/2020 Andrey Aleksandrovich STARODUBOV Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 01/10/2019   7,500   10905/20 05/02/2020 Igor Vyacheslavovich NESTEROV Justice of the Peace of the Magistralnyy Judicial Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District of Syktyvkar 12/08/2019   7,500   11540/20 12/02/2020 Andrey Yuryevich PASHKOVSKIY Volosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region 14/08/2019   7,500   11593/20 07/02/2020 Vladimir Yuryevich IVANOV Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 09/12/2019   7,500   12002/20 07/02/2020 Denis Yuryevich MUKHAMEDZHANOV Justice of the Peace of the Parkovyy Judicial Circuit of Vorkuta 22/01/2020   7,500   12170/20 18/02/2020 Andrey Ilyich KRYLOV Severodvinsk Town Court, Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court 05/09/2019   7,500   12217/20 10/02/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TERNENKO Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court 05/09/2019   7,500   12517/20 10/02/2020 Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 02/12/2019   7,500   13305/20 10/02/2020 Aleksey Igorevich PAKHOMOV Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg 23/10/2019   7,500   13591/20 18/05/2020 Igor Sergeyevich MYADELETS Kirovsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region 12/03/2020 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 - transport by van between 14/11/2019 and 12/03/2020 on numerous occasions between the detention facility and the courthouse; 0.4 sq. m of personal space; van and transit cell; overcrowding, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of privacy for toilet 8,500   13699/20 15/02/2020 Dmitriy Vladimirovich LYADOV Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg 16/08/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - numerous occasions of transport between the detention facility and the courthouse from 15/02/2018 to 16/08/2019; by van; overcrowding, restricted access to toilet and fresh air 8,500   13890/20 06/05/2020 Sergey Igorevich FOKIN Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 12/03/2020   7,500   14312/20 17/03/2020 Gennadiy Nikolayevich MASLICH Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic 25/02/2020   7,500   16840/20 10/03/2020 Aleksandr Viktorovich EBERT Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg 12/02/2020 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 24/04/2019 - 27/06/2022, Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court, fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership in an organised criminal group 8,750   17226/20 24/03/2020 David Romanovich DAVITASHVILI Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 08/09/2020   7,500   18419/20 27/03/2020 Kadir Bazarbayevich USMANOV Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 04/10/2019   7,500   18604/20 09/04/2020 Ilya Sergeyevich GUSEV Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Video link from IK-31, Krasnoyarsk Region 10/02/2020   7,500   19313/20 27/03/2020 Nikolay Sergeyevich KLUBAYEV Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg 09/10/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - lengthy transfers in vans to the courthouse from 02/10/2019 to 09/10/2019, overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m per person 8,500   19575/20 04/05/2020 Vitaliy Aleksandrovich FABRYY Leninskiy and Kirovskiy District Courts of Rostov-on-Don and Rostov Regional Court 08/11/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in prison vans and cells at the courthouses from 17/02/2017 to 08/11/2019; overcrowding; restricted access to toilet; lack of food and potable water   4,700   20623/20 23/04/2020 Eduard Vardanovich SALIMOV Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen 24/10/2019   7,500   20634/20 23/04/2020 Stepan Georgiyevich NIKOARA Surgut Town Court 05/12/2019   7,500   20979/20 09/04/2020 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLPAKOV Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 20/01/2020 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 - by van on numerous occasions to the courthouse and his detention in the transit cell of the Tsentralniy District court of Krasnoyarsk. From 03/07/2019 to 12/02/2020. 1.2 sq. m of personal space. Lack of fresh air, natural light and privacy for toilet. 8,500   21271/20 27/04/2020 Andrey Pavlovich SOKOLOV Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Komi Republic and Supreme Court of the Republic Komi 14/10/2019   7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.