CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 31 August 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39782/15 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and the conditions of the their transport to temporary detention facilities and/or courthouses for participation in investigating activities and/or court hearings, as well as the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this connection. They raise issues under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention. Applications nos.   61953/15 and 33771/16 further raise an issue of the applicants’ confinement in metal cages in courtrooms from the angle of Article   6 §§   1, 2 and 3 (b) of the Convention. Application no.   61953/15 further concerns the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility and raises issues under Articles   3 and 6   §§   1 and 3 (b) of the Convention. Lastly, application no.   33771/16 concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prisons and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in this respect and raises issues under Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos.   59655/14 and 2   others, §   31, 31   January 2017)? 2.     Have the conditions of the applicants’ transport to temporary detention facilities and/or courthouses for participation in investigating activities and/or court hearings been compatible with Article   3 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§   103-108, 22   May 2012, and M.S. v. Russia , no. 8589/08, §§   74-77, 10   July 2014)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   3 of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages and conditions of their transport, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, §   87; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §   113, 4   October 2016; and M.S., cited above, §§   80-86)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Applications nos.   61953/15 and 33771/16 Did the applicants’ placement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article   6 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected?   (b)     Were the applicants afforded adequate facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article   6 §   3 (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the metal cages in the courtrooms? Were the applicants provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Were they afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial? Application no. 61953/15 1.     Were the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility IVS “Vyshnevolotskiy” in Tver Region, in the light of the specific allegations made by the applicant, compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? 2.     Did the conditions in which the applicant participated in investigating activities on the premises of the temporary detention facility IVS “Vyshnevolotskiy” affect her right to have adequate facilities for the preparation of her defence as required by Article   6   §§   1   and   3   (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the room in which the investigating activities were conducted? Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to take notes? Application no. 33771/16 1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prisons SIZO-6 and IK-7 in St Petersburg, in the light of the specific allegations made by the applicant, compatible with Article   3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   139-66, 10   January 2012)? 2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   3 of the Convention regarding the conditions of his detention in remand prison, as required by Article   13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§   100-19)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   39782/15 25/07/2015 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich SALNIKOV 10/04/1984 Vladivostok       61953/15 10/10/2015 Irina Anatolyevna MISHKINA 23/09/1984 Onega       33771/16 31/05/2016 Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich KORABLEV 29/04/1987 St Petersburg   Maksim Vladimirovich SEMENOV