CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s50B7D056 { width:182.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s77730776 { height:52.5pt } .s18E16575 { height:33.85pt } .s946186CA { height:1.6pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF POKUSIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 21440/13 and 9 others – see appended list )                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   4 October 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pokusin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2018, 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 applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). 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 I.     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. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     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, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 7.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept 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. 8.     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. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     In applications nos.   42204/17 and 83401/17, the 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, §§ 103-108 and 154-158, 22 May 2012). IV.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     In applications nos.   34442/15, 18293/17, 33984/17, 42204/17, 44658/17 and 52066/17, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §   4 of the Convention. V.     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 v. Russia, no.   59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the applications nos.   34442/15, 18293/17, 33984/17, 42204/17, 44658/17 and 52066/17 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints 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;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   5.     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 4 October 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (use of metal cages in courtrooms) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date 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]     21440/13 14/03/2013 Maksim Igorevich Pokusin 21/01/1990     Abakanskiy Town Court of the Republic of Khakassiya 27/09/2012   7,500     8052/14 11/01/2014 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Shashov 23/08/1977 Butenko Yevgeniy Viktorovich Krasnodar Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar (11 hearings) 24/07/2013   7,500     34442/15 19/02/2016 Vladimir Yuryevich Tyshchenko 07/06/1982     Vyshnevolotsk Town Court 18/11/2015   7,500     18293/17 15/02/2017 Pavel Vasilyevich Shusharov 02/10/1979 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma 04/10/2016   7,500     33984/17 28/03/2017 Petr Anatolyevich Yakovlev 03/07/1987 Shishkina Olga Yevgenyevna Arkhangelsk Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 25/10/2016   7,500     42204/17 22/05/2017 Yelena Vladimirovna Medvedeva 30/01/1977     Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod 25/04/2017 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on several occasions after 07/03/2017 the applicant was transported by overcrowded prison vans to court hearings 9,750     44658/17 03/06/2017 Aleksey Nikolayevich Chetyrkin 02/05/1982     Kogalym Town Court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Region 27/12/2016   7,500     52066/17 05/07/2017 Mikhail Vladimirovich Geyntse 20/11/1986     Achinsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region, three hearings with the applicant in a metal cage, including the most recent on 27/03/2017   7,500     81600/17 17/11/2017 Vasiliy Anatolyevich Shatalov 12/10/1968 Suntsov Andrey Andreyevich Izhevsk Ustinovskiy District Court of Izhevsk, numerous hearings in which the applicant was placed in a metal cage, with the most recent hearing on 10/11/2017   7,500   83401/17 30/11/2017 Sergey Vladimirovich Morozov 17/02/1965 Nazarov Vladimir Veniaminovich Vladivostok Nakhodka Town Court - Primorye Regional Court; participation in hearings via video link with the applicant being placed in a metal cage, several dates with the most recent on 30/05/2017 Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention authorised by the Nakhodka Town Court on 28/04/2017; statement of appeal lodged on 05/05/2017; appeal examination by the Primorye Regional Court took place 26 days later, on 31/05/2017. 8,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.