CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14551/06 Yevgeniy Viktorovich SEREBRINSKIY against Russia and 11 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicants are Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. Their names and dates of birth are tabulated below. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 2.     On various dates between 2005 and 2016 the applicants were criminally prosecuted and convicted for various offences under the Russian legislation in force. 3.     In the course of the relevant proceedings the applicants sought attendance and examination of certain defence witnesses mentioned in the table below. The domestic courts in some cases granted the requests to call and examine defence witnesses and refused them in others. 4.     The applicant in the case no. 1798/17 was allegedly held in a metal cage in the courtroom during the hearings of 14 June, 16 June, 20 June and 21   June 2016 of the Sovetskiy Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about inability to obtain attendance and examination of defence witnesses 6.     The applicant in the case no. 1798/17 complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, that his confinement in a metal cage during proceedings before the Sovetskiy Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? Specifically, were the applicants able to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants provide the domestic courts with reasons justifying the need to examine respective defence witnesses in court (see Dorokhov v.   Russia , no.   66802/01, §§ 67-72, 14 February 2008)? Was the examination of these persons necessary for the establishment of the truth or was their absence prejudicial to the defence rights ( Guilloury v. France , no. 62236/00, § 55, 22 June 2006 with further reference)?   3. In the circumstances of the present cases and having regard to the applicants’ arguments, were the domestic courts required to ensure the attendance and examination of the respective defence witnesses at the hearings? What were the reasons advanced by the domestic courts for their decisions to call or refuse to call respective defence witnesses or to continue the proceedings in their absence?   4.     Did the domestic courts secure the overall fairness of the proceedings as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) of the Convention. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION Application no. 1798/17. Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113-39, ECHR   2014 (extracts))?   The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cage used to confine the applicant in the courtroom concerned. APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Final judgment Defence witness(es)   14551/06* 23/03/2006 Yevgeniy Viktorovich SEREBRINSKIY Izhevsk   Ruslan Minesabirovich GABZULATINOV   Supreme Court of Udmurtiya Republic, 27 September 2005 defense witnesses Mr Shaykhutdinov, Ms Kukushkina       64141/11* 04/10/2011 Viktor Aleksandrovich LUKOVENKO 06/04/1985 Ulan-Ude   Aleksandr Vitalyevich VASILYEV   Moscow City Court, 23 May 2011 defense witness Ms Terpugova     74750/11* 29/11/2011 Andrey Yuryevich ZABOLOTSKIY 13/04/1976 Donskoy, Tula region   Mikhail Vladimirovich SIDORKIN Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 11 October 2011 defense witness Mr Izotov     78599/11* 18/11/2011 Pavel Vyacheslavovich YELKIN 01/07/1985 Kursk   Andrey Alekseyevich SMETSKOY Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 31 May 2011 defense witnesses Ms Zalibekova, Ms Yelkina, Ms Churilova, Ms Belozyorova, Mr   Taratukhin, Mr Deulin, Ms Kholopova, Mr Aaganin, Ms Chelnakova     78905/12* 03/12/2012 Vyacheslav Vladimirovich ZABEGALOV 11/05/1961 Potma, Republic of Mordoviya     Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 14 June 2012 defense witness Mrs Philippova     3260/14* 23/12/2013 Sergey Aleksandrovich SHKALYAR 29/07/1984 St Petersburg   Artem Aleksandrovich RASSOKHIN St Petersburg City Court, 2 July 2013 defence witnesses Ms Kholmacheva and "Olga"     61973/14* 02/09/2014 Pavel Vladimirovich YASTREBOV 19/04/1996 Lyubertsy, Moscow region   Antonina Viktorovna ABRAMOVA Moscow City Court, 3 March 2014 defense witnesses Mr Samarin and Mr Gasanov     73332/14* 05/11/2014 Roman Viktorovich NIKOLAYENKO 24/08/1981 Rostov-na-Donu   Mikhail Anatolyevich GRANOVSKIY Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 7 May 2014 defense witness Mr Ratiya     37259/15 06/07/2015 Andrey Valeryevich CHILYAKOV 16/12/1988 Chelyabinsk   Raul Amurovich KHASHIMOV Chelyabinsk Regional Court, 16 January 2015 defence witness Ponkratyev     46205/15* 02/09/2015 Sergey Vyacheslavovich YELISEYEV 22/09/1964 Taganrog, Rostov region   Sergey Borisovich KHOMENKO Rostov Regional Court, 4 March 201 defence witnesses Kulakov and Dressen     1798/17* 09/12/2016 Yevgeniy Borisovich ZHURAVLEV 10/03/1992 Sovetsk, Kaliningrad region   Aleksandr Yevgenyevich VIKHAREV Kaliningrad Regional Court, 25 August 2016 defence witnesses Ms and Mr Danilenko     74582/17* 13/09/2017 Mikhail Vyacheslavovich GERASIMOV 11/01/1980 Komsomolsk-na-Amure     Military Court of Dalnevostochniy Command, 17 May 2017 defence witnesses Bolshikhshapov, Berestova