FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 12166/19 and 41 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

7 March 2024

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Zhdanov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Lətif Hüseynov, President,
 Ivana Jelić,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 8 February 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 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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, §§ 6873, 17 January 2023).

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 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 a party. 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. 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).

  1. 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, §§ 31-58, 28 November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; S.P. and Others v. Russia, nos. 36463/11 and 10 others, §§ 65-109, 2 May 2023, concerning inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates in the informal prisoner hierarchy in the Russian penal facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-142, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; 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; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 21-33, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

15.  Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present applications and thus does not find it necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014; and S.P. and Others, cited above, §§ 111-15), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention raised by the applicants in respect of their placement in a metal cage in courtrooms and lack of an effective remedy in that regard, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints lodged by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention;
  4. 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;
  5. 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);
  6. 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;
  7. 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 7 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 

 Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
 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]

  1.    

12166/19

07/02/2019

Roman Sergeyevich ZHDANOV

1977

 

 

Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

25/02/2019

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport: train; 17/06/2019-18/06/2019; 0.35 sq. m of personal space, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places,

 

Art. 3 - inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates as a result of segregation, humiliating practices and abuse in their daily life while in detention, heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence (prison hierarchy)

The applicant belongs to a “middle cast” – “the red” (technical staff) since 2007 when serving his sentence in penal facilities of the Krasnoyarsk Region (IZ-1, LIU-37, IK-42, IK-5) between 27/12/2019 and 24/09/2021. He complains about his prison status and hardships he had to endure in everyday life, discriminative attitude on the ground of his degrading status and a reluctance of the penal facilities’ administration to change the existing order and their active support of the existing system of informal hierarchy

 

26,000

  1.    

33267/19

19/06/2019

Islombek Dilshatbekovich KAMALOV

1997

Memorial Human Rights Centre

Moscow

Military Appeal Court (video link)

08/10/2020

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - On 27/12/2018 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity,

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings

 

9,750

  1.    

37791/19

11/07/2019

Murad Fayzudinovich SAFARKULIYEV

1986

Sommer Ulrich

Köln

Georgiyevsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court (video link)

22/01/2019

 

7,500

  1.    

43022/19

08/08/2019

Natalya Nikolayevna RUSETSKAYA

1980

Kuzmichev Konstantin Nikolayevich

Chelyabinsk

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Video link from SIZO3, Chelyabinsk Region

13/02/2019

 

7,500

  1.    

4140/21

22/12/2020

Petr Nikolayevich CHERKAS

1986

Gaynutdinova Yuliya Sergeyevna

Kazan

Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region

02/10/2020

 

Amursk Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region

21/12/2020

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention: IK-6 Khabarovsk Region; from 17/11/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022; lack of fresh air, overcrowding, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient outdoor exercise, natural light, 2 sq. m. of personal space,

 

Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, since 17/11/2017, 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 and inadequate conditions of detention after conviction

 

13,300

  1.    

7647/21

22/12/2020

Magomed Akhmedovich ALIBEKOV

1989

Petrov Roman Nikolayevich

Cheboksary

Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan

23/06/2020

 

 

7,500

  1.    

10002/21

26/01/2021

Ildar Foatovich AKHMETZYANOV

1977

Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich

Cheboksary

Military Appeal Court

27/07/2020

 

7,500

  1.    

10883/21

28/05/2021

Yuriy Vladimirovich PUZANOV

1991

Dunayeva Alla Igorevna

Chelyabinsk

4th Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction

30/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.    

13010/21

21/02/2021

Vadim Vadimovich MOLYAKOV

1962

Tsarenkov Mikhail Maisovich

Irkutsk

Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court

29/12/2020

 

6,550

  1.  

15164/21

17/02/2021

Genrik Vazgenovich MARGARYAN

1984

Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich

Krasnoyarsk

Balakhtinskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

(proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

7,500

  1.  

15173/21

20/02/2021

Denis Maksimovich TYURIN

1995

Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich

Krasnoyarsk

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

27/01/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

15828/21

03/03/2021

Marina Borisovna LUKASHEVICH

1975

Karakasiyan Artem Vaniyanovich

Moskva

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 03/07/2020-17/12/2021: detention was based on typical assumptions; the courts made no reference to any evidence of real risks of the applicant’s absconding or obstructing justice

 

9,750

  1.  

20156/21

12/03/2021

Igor Vladimirovich MUNSKIY

1967

Munskiy Nikolay Vladimirovich

Krasnoyarsk

Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

17/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

22048/21

05/04/2021

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich ANDREYEV

1977

Fedotova Yuliya

Yekaterinburg

Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

14/10/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

22468/21

05/04/2021

Sergey Aleksandrovich SHALAGIN

1989

Fedotova Yuliya

Yekaterinburg

Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia

14/10/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

22892/21

28/05/2021

Ildar Railovich GABBYASOV

1985

Dunayeva Alla Igorevna

Chelyabinsk

Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction

30/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

25847/21

23/04/2021

Pavel Olegovich FROLOV

1992

Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich

Astrakhan

Astrakhan Regional Court (video link); Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan

23/10/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

26442/21

21/04/2021

Aleksandr Sergeyevich KALASHNIKOV

1988

Cherkasova Antonina Nikolayevna

Kaliningrad

Svetliy Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad Regional Court

12/02/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

28612/21

20/04/2021

Yuriy Vyacheslavovich BESHCHENTSEV

1990

 

 

 

Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region

20/10/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

28812/21

11/05/2021

Aleksandr Sergeyevich SELIVANOV

1986

 

 

Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court (video link)

11/02/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

28860/21

13/05/2021

Andrey Sergeyevich ZHIGULSKIY

 

 

 

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

7,500

  1.  

29973/21

11/05/2021

Aleksey Aleksandrovich MELNIKOV

1977

 

 

Moshkovskiy Ditrict Court of the Novosibirsk Region

26/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

30568/21

23/05/2021

Sergey Viktorovich DENISOV

1991

 

 

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza

29/12/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

30994/21

30/12/2021

Aleksandr Igorevich NOVOSELOV

1992

 

 

Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

7,500

  1.  

31148/21

10/05/2021

Andrey Vladimirovich NOVOSPASSKIY

1982

Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna

Chita

Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (video link)

11/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

31185/21

25/05/2021

Anatoliy Petrovich MONAKHOV

1978

Nazarov Ilya Yulyevich

Moscow

Istra Town Court of the Moscow Region

26/11/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

31275/21

27/05/2021

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich REUT

1990

 

 

Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk

25/06/2021

Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - on 28/07/2021 the Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk refused the applicant’s request for phone calls with his relatives, in the absence of any possibility of visits from them,

 

Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits and in respect of the prohibition of the phone calls with family members in a remand prison

9,750

  1.  

37791/21

29/12/2021

Andrey Borisovich TYULNIKOV

1977

 

 

Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

24/09/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

38362/21

12/07/2021

Vuacheslav Vyacheslavovich YARMOLYUK

1990

Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich

Volgograd

Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

7,500

  1.  

39523/21

12/06/2021

Mikhail Alekseyevich YERSHOV

1984

 

 

Petrovsk-Zabaykalskiy Town Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region

24/02/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

39718/21

09/07/2021

Marat Iskanderovich GALIASKAROV

1986

 

 

Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan

06/12/2021

 

5,200

  1.  

41185/21

15/07/2021

Ivan Vasilyevich ATAMANYUK

1985

 

 

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan

19/03/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

41255/21

14/07/2021

Sergey Nikolayevich BOKAREV

1978

 

 

Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi

21/05/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

41589/21

27/07/2021

Vladimir Aleksandrovich PYRKOV

1981

Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna

Voronezh

Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Ramonskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region

27/04/2021

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention: 12/09/2018 - 27/04/2021;

Ramonskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region; Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh; Voronezh Regional Court;

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders

 

9,750

  1.  

41653/21

13/09/2021

Ivan Aleksandrovich MOISEYEV

1985

 

 

Zheleznogorsk Town Court of the Kranoyarsk Region

18/06/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

41755/21

29/07/2021

Olga Vladimirovna STRUCHKOVA

1965

Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich

Volgograd

Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of Volgograd

17/03/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

42545/21

05/08/2021

Oleg Pavlovich PETUKHOV

1981

 

 

Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the

Court)

 

7,500

  1.  

42710/21

05/08/2021

Maksim Igorevich MARCHENKO

1996

Sidorenko Boris Vladimirovich

Pyatigorsk

Predgorniy District Court of the Stavropol Region

09/09/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

42745/21

08/08/2021

Igor Aleksandrovich KRUPSKIKH

1974

Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich

Volgograd

Krasnooktyabrskiy Disctrict Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court (video link)

24/06/2021

 

7,500

  1.  

44375/21

22/12/2021

Artysh Aleksandrovich SALCHAK

1992

 

 

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

22/09/2021

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention: 06/03/2020-22/09/2021;

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint,

 

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 22/07/2021, was reviewed by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 17/08/2021

9,750

  1.  

26765/22

26/04/2022

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich DUBOVOY

1976

 

 

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

 

 

 

7,500

  1.  

56144/22

15/11/2022

Anton Nikolayevich DEMIN

1986

Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich

Syktyvkar

Syktyvkar Town Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appellate Court (video link)

(Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)

 

 

7,500

 

 


[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.