Last Updated on September 15, 2022 by LawEuro
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.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KORABLEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 32627/17 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Korablevy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
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
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 ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION
6. Mr Korablev (application no. 32627/17), Mr Nekhkayenko (application no. 30889/18) and Mr Zaripov (application no. 41349/18) complained 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.”
Mr Korablev and Mr Zaripov also complained that that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievance under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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.
10. 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application no. 32627/17, the 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 findings in its well-established case-law (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, concerning discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In applications nos. 32627/17 and 41349/18, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. 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
14. 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.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above, and Kungurov v. Russia, no. 70468/17, 18 February 2020) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. The Court further 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, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention related to the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage during court hearings, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 32627/17 and 41349/18 as inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ (see paragraph 6 above) 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 the 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 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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 Year of birth |
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 /household (in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 32627/17 03/04/2017 |
Household Denis Anatolyevich KORABLEV 1984 Marina Nikolayevna KORABLEVA 1963 |
The first applicant, an inmate, participated in a number of court hearings, each time having been placed in a metal cage: Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk, Ivanovo Regional Court, Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Regional Court, Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Krasnoflotskiy District Court of Khabarovsk, Sovetsko-Gavanskiy Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region | Art. 8 (1) – lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – the first applicant complained about impossibility to have short or long-term visits by his mother in a pre-trial detention facility (SIZO-1 Khabarovsk) during detention there from September-November 2017; Art. 14 – prohibition of discrimination – read in conjunction with the complaint under Article 8: the restrictions on the right to long-term family visits were linked to the status of the first applicant as an accused person placed in a remand prison while the detainees already serving sentence benefited from the long family visits(see Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 66-83, 28 May 2019). |
9,750 |
| 2. | 30889/18 01/06/2018 |
Vladimir Sergeyevich NEKHAYENKO 1985 |
Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 15/05/2018 |
7,500 | |
| 3. | 41349/18 17/08/2018 |
Ruslan Saubanovich ZARIPOV 1981 |
Supreme Court of Russia 04/10/2018 |
7,500 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply