Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KURISHKO v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 12094/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kurishko v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 February 2019.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained principally about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He 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.”
6. The Court notes that the applicant was kept a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of his 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.
7. 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 applicant’s confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him amounted to degrading treatment.
8. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
II. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
9. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
10. The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. 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 it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
13. 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. Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
______________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 12094/19
06/02/2019 |
Andrey Sergeyevich KURISHKO
1983 |
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
04/10/2018 |
7,500 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply