MAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 64304/19 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 619 (04 July 2024)

BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MAMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 64304/19 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2024] ECHR 619 (04 July 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/619.html
Cite as: [2024] ECHR 619

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

 

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

  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, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).

  1. 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).

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

  1. 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,

  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 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;
  4. 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;
  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 the appended table);
  6. 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;
  7. 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;
  8. 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]

  1.    

64304/19

18/11/2019

Roman Ibragimovich MAMIN

1980

Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court

30/05/2019

 

7,500

  1.    

279/20

11/02/2020

Artem Valeryevich LUTOSHKIN

1978

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

  1.    

948/20

06/04/2020

Pavel Nikolayevich IVANOV

1989

Ust-Abakanskiy District Court of the Khakassia Republic

30/01/2020

 

7,500

  1.    

1442/20

02/03/2020

Konstantin Vladimirovich YEFREMOV

1984

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

30/01/2020

 

7,500

  1.    

2316/20

17/12/2019

Ilya Valeryevich MOKSHIN

1994

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

  1.    

2434/20

22/11/2019

Aleksey Anatolyevich BURKOV

1981

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

  1.    

2437/20

23/12/2019

Nikita Sergeyevich MURASHEV

1992

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

  1.    

3478/20

31/12/2019

Yelena Vladimirovna MEDVEDEVA

1977

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.

  1.    

4589/20

24/12/2019

Vitaliy Aleksandrovich DRYUPIN

1984

Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

31/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

4697/20

09/01/2020

Aleksandr Villisovich SHTULBERG

1955

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

09/07/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

5709/20

07/01/2020

Rakhim Ablikimovich KASYMOV

1986

Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Region

30/09/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

6096/20

31/03/2020

Sergey Ivanovich SOKOLOV

1985

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

05/02/2020

 

5,500

  1.  

6537/20

27/12/2019

Nikita Fedorovich CHMYR

1993

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

  1.  

6788/20

11/01/2020

Dmitriy Alekseyevich GROMOV

1987

Moscow City Court, Video link from SIZO-2, Moscow

11/07/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

6845/20

09/01/2020

Nikolay Vladimirovich BRYLEV

1990

Chernovskiy District Court of Chita

15/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

7382/20

13/12/2019

Anvar Magnaviyevich TIMERGALIYEV

1984

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

  1.  

8166/20

04/12/2019

Andrey Germanovich BOVTALOV

1971

 

 

 

Novosibirsk Regional Court

13/06/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

8187/20

15/12/2019

Sergey Valeryevich NASYROV

1985

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

  1.  

8199/20

09/01/2020

Aleksey Vladimirovich GOLOVIN

1981

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

01/02/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

8226/20

25/01/2020

Ruslan Valeryevich SOROKIN

1987

Video link from SIZO-2, Kirov Region

19/09/2019

 

3,000

  1.  

8610/20

17/01/2020

Oleg Vladislavovich YERMAKOV

1966

Vygonichskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region;

Bryansk Regional Court,

video link from SIZO-1, Bryansk

17/07/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

9320/20

29/01/2020

Vladimir Nikolayevich STASENKOV

1963

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

  1.  

9395/20

11/02/2020

Erik Iskoyevich MIRZOYAN

1992

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.

  1.  

9714/20

05/02/2020

Maksim Yevgenyevich ZAYTSEV

1983

Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court

26/08/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

10354/20

08/02/2020

Nikita Vladimirovich CHENTSOV

1996

Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

Video link from SIZO-4, Moscow

08/08/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

10886/20

30/03/2020

Andrey Aleksandrovich STARODUBOV

1994

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

01/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

10905/20

05/02/2020

Igor Vyacheslavovich NESTEROV

1982

Justice of the Peace of the Magistralnyy Judicial Circuit of the Ezhvinskiy District of Syktyvkar

12/08/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

11540/20

12/02/2020

Andrey Yuryevich PASHKOVSKIY

1973

Volosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region

14/08/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

11593/20

07/02/2020

Vladimir Yuryevich IVANOV

1986

Berezovskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

09/12/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

12002/20

07/02/2020

Denis Yuryevich MUKHAMEDZHANOV

1979

Justice of the Peace of the Parkovyy Judicial Circuit of Vorkuta

22/01/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

12170/20

18/02/2020

Andrey Ilyich KRYLOV

1982

Severodvinsk Town Court, Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court

05/09/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

12217/20

10/02/2020

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich TERNENKO

1977

Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region and Kurgan Regional Court

05/09/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

12517/20

10/02/2020

Aleksey Vladimirovich NEPOMNYASHCHIKH

1994

Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

02/12/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

13305/20

10/02/2020

Aleksey Igorevich PAKHOMOV

1984

Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg

23/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

13591/20

18/05/2020

Igor Sergeyevich MYADELETS

1986

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

  1.  

13699/20

15/02/2020

Dmitriy Vladimirovich LYADOV

1981

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

  1.  

13890/20

06/05/2020

Sergey Igorevich FOKIN

1981

Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

12/03/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

14312/20

17/03/2020

Gennadiy Nikolayevich MASLICH

1981

Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic

25/02/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

16840/20

10/03/2020

Aleksandr Viktorovich EBERT

1984

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

  1.  

17226/20

24/03/2020

David Romanovich DAVITASHVILI

1973

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

08/09/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

18419/20

27/03/2020

Kadir Bazarbayevich USMANOV

1984

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

04/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

18604/20

09/04/2020

Ilya Sergeyevich GUSEV

1987

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Video link from IK-31, Krasnoyarsk Region

10/02/2020

 

7,500

  1.  

19313/20

27/03/2020

Nikolay Sergeyevich KLUBAYEV

1982

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

  1.  

19575/20

04/05/2020

Vitaliy Aleksandrovich FABRYY

1977

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

  1.  

20623/20

23/04/2020

Eduard Vardanovich SALIMOV

2000

Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen

24/10/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

20634/20

23/04/2020

Stepan Georgiyevich NIKOARA

1989

Surgut Town Court

05/12/2019

 

7,500

  1.  

20979/20

09/04/2020

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KOLPAKOV

1984

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

  1.  

21271/20

27/04/2020

Andrey Pavlovich SOKOLOV

1961

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.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2024/619.html