CASE OF CHASHCHUKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them

Last Updated on November 2, 2023 by LawEuro

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. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

---

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF CHASHCHUKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 11590/17 and 48 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 November 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Chashchukhin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,

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. 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).

III. alleged violation of articles 3 and 13 of the conventioin on account of post-conviction detention

7. Mr Goncharov (application no. 62933/19) complained that the conditions of his post-conviction detention in 2019-2021 were in breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. Having examined the materials before it, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining these complaints for the reasons set out below.

8. 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 (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).

9. 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), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (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.

10. Accordingly, this part of application no. 62933/19 should be struck out of the list (see Astafyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 31652/17 and 19 other applications, 19 January 2023).

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of placement in a metal cage in the courtroom

11. The applicants 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:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

12. Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading 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.”

13. 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, nos. 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.

14. 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.

15. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

16. Having regard to the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

17. 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 152-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of detention during transport; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, regarding the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018, concerning restrictions in connection with family visits for prisoners; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect).

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18. 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.”

19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), as well as considering previous awards made by the Court to some of the applicants, it finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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. Decides to strike the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the conditions of the post-conviction detention lodged by Mr Goncharov (application no. 62933/19) out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

4. Declares the remaining complaints raised by the applicants admissible;

5. 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;

6. 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);

7. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage in courtrooms;

8. 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 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina               Lorraine Schembri Orland
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	Other complaints under  well-established case-law	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i]
1.	11590/17 19/01/2017	Oleg Leonidovich CHASHCHUKHIN 1976	Leninskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk of the Chelyabinsk Region, Video link from SIZO-2, Chelyabinsk region 25/07/2016		7,500
2.	12248/17 07/06/2017	Andrey Olegovich MALYUGIN 1984	St Petersburg City Court (by means of video link, from a remand prison) 19/01/2017	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – overcrowding during his numerous transfers between the detention facilities and the courthouse in a van, single occupancy compartment, with no more than 0.3 sq. m of personal space at all times; from 30/04/2013 to 19/05/2017; transfers lasted from 40 minutes to 3 hours	8,500
3.	56218/17 18/07/2017	Artem Konstantinovich ZAKURNAYEV 1991	Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region (in the courthouse); Krasnoyarsk Regional Court video link from SIZO-4, Norilsk 04/04/2017		7,500
4.	58355/17 28/07/2017	Maksim Sergeyevich BELYKH 1981	Buzulukskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region and the Orenburg Regional Court (by way of video conference) 21/04/2017		7,500
5.	5179/18 16/12/2017	Dmitriy Ivanovich LYSAKOVSKIY 1979	Meshchanskiy District Court and the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow; confinement to a metal cage in a video link room of a remand prison during hearings in the Moscow City Court 07/11/2019		7,500
6.	7505/18 17/01/2018	Andrey Vasilyevich SEMAYEV 1988	Nizhnekamsk Town Court 26/07/2017		7,500
7.	13269/18 01/02/2018	Timur Olegovich YURTAYEV 1984	Vorkuta Town Court. In a courtroom Supreme Court of the Komi Republic; Video link 27/10/2017		7,500
8.	13297/18 15/02/2018	Sergey Olegovich BIBIK 1986	Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; video link from SIZO-1, Krasnoyarsk Region 31/10/2017		7,500
9.	16104/18 17/03/2018	Elgudzha Pantikovich DZHUMUTIYA 1965	Oktyabrskiy/Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg Since 26/09/2017 – on-going placement in a metal cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court		7,500
10.	37157/18 16/07/2018	Igor Aleksandrovich SOKOLOVSKIY 1983	Khanty-Mansiyskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Region – Yugra 26/04/2018		7,500
11.	43902/18 03/09/2018	Sergey Nikolayevich KALININ 1971	Ivdelskiy District Court of Sverdlovsk Region via videoconference from IK-6, the Khabarovsk Region; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan via videoconference from IK-6, the Khabarovsk Region 31/03/2021	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, 11/03/2018-26/03/2018, 0.8 sq. m per inmate, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet,   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities, restrictions during short-term visits, and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – IK-6 Khabarovsk Region since 26/04/2018 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged: opposite-sex operators video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room,   Art. 8 (1) – lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, last short-term visit with the applicant’s wife on 29/04/2021, repetitive refusals to remove physical separation.	9,750
12.	43998/18 10/09/2018	Igor Valeryevich KOROLEV 1975	Ust-Vymskiy District Court, Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 26/03/2018		7,500
13.	44585/18 31/08/2018	Aleksandr Luisovich KONDRATYEV 1992	Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 01/03/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van on a large number of occasions, in the period from 04/04/2015 to 28/03/2018, 0.3 sq. m of personal space, 3.5-hour long transfers;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
14.	45824/18 03/09/2018	Yegor Vyacheslavovich SAFONOV 1991	Novosibirskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region; Novosibirsk Regional Court. Video link from SIZO-1, Novosibirsk 06/04/2018		7,500
15.	51691/18 11/10/2018	Andrey Valeryevich AKIMOV 1991	Sverdlovskiy District Court and Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Video link from SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk 20/01/2022	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – (1) train, 01/10/2018-02/10/2018, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet; (2) multiple transfers: van (2 hours; 1.5 hours, 3.5 hours), train (15 hours and 11 hours), transit cell (9 hours) 20/04/2019 – 25/04/2019, 0.2 sq. m, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet; (3) van, train, 11/05/2019-20/05/2019, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of potable water.	8,500
16.	52646/18 29/10/2018	Valeriy Anatolyevich KOZHIKHOV 1965	Kirov Regional Court since 12/07/2018 – on-going placement in a metal cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court		7,500
17.	3329/19 17/12/2018	Dmitriy Eduardovich MALTSEV 1994	Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen, Tyumen Region Court 09/10/2018		7,500
18.	12307/19 13/02/2019	Dmitriy Sergeyevich SHTIN 1988	Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 28/08/2018		7,500
19.	13112/19 19/02/2019	Liana Mikhaylovna RAZUVAYEVA 1989	Nefteyuganskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansi Region – Yugra 02/11/2018		7,500
20.	16190/19 28/10/2019	Rustam Aleksandrovich GOREYEV 1975	Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/07/2019		7,500
21.	17507/19 20/11/2019	Aleksey Valentinovich ALEKSEYEV 1969	Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 19/08/2019		7,500
22.	20432/19 02/04/2019	Aleksandr Vadimovich SOBOL 1975	Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 02/10/2018		7,500
23.	22698/19 03/04/2019	Daniil Sergeyevich SHUBKOV 1997	Nikolskiy District Court of the Vologda Region 22/10/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – numerous occasions of transport since 16/03/2018, with the most recent on 21/01/2019; van in a single occupancy compartment; 0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space; insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, restricted or no access to toilet, no access to food and potable water;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
24.	30896/19 27/05/2019	Pavel Aleksandrovich SERGUN 1993	Supreme Court of the Komi Republic, Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic 12/03/2019		7,500
25.	32869/19 10/06/2019	Amir Shamilevich BAYAZITOV 1975	Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 04/04/2019	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 – inadequate conditions of transport in a van with numerous occasions of transport to take part in investigative actions and court hearings between 24/11/2016 – 04/04/2019 with less than 0.2 m² per inmate, passive smoking, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature	8,500
26.	37687/19 23/12/2019	Platon Mikhaylovich DURMANOV 1986	Petrodvortsoviy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court 04/08/2020	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by train and detention in transit cells between 1) 30/09/2019 and 17/04/2020; less than 1 sq. m of personal space; lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, passive smoking, overcrowding, lack of privacy for toilet, applicant transported on numerous occasions;   2) 17/04/2020 to 12/08/2020, van, transit cell – overcrowding, 0.2-0.9 sq. m of personal space, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food,   3) 12/08/2020 to 17/09/2020, train, van, 0.2 sq. m, overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet,   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
27.	43632/19 07/09/2019	Sergey Andreyevich SOKOLOV 1988	Kamchatka Regional Court 11/06/2019		7,500
28.	44808/19 06/08/2019	Nikita Fedorovich TIMOFEYEV 1989	Supreme Court of the Komi Republic Video link from IK-19, Komi Republic 23/12/2021	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance   Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – IZ-1 Komi Republic; 14/09/2018 – 25/07/2020; opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance	7,500
29.	46691/19 16/12/2019	Sergey Sergeyevich STOGOV 1990	Rybinskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 14/01/2021		7,500
30.	51456/19 18/09/2019	Vasiliy Vasilyevich NYACHKO 1978	Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 17/05/2019		7,500
31.	53766/19 30/09/2019	Pavel Vasilyevich KOREPIN 1985	Kortkerosskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 02/07/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport between the detention facilities on 13-14/07/2019 and 08/08/2019 (overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet);   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport	8,500
32.	54037/19 19/09/2019	Maksim Yevgenyevich KOBCHIKOV 1975	Boksitogorsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region 26/07/2019		7,500
33.	54077/19 30/09/2019	Dmitriy Viktorovich KUTNYAKOV 1989	Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court Video link from SIZO-4, Moscow 17/09/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport of the applicant on numerous occasions since 24/10/2015 until late April 2019 to take part in investigative actions and court hearings; in an overcrowded van for several hours; without proper access to toilet; ventilation; and subsequent detention in convoy cells of the courthouses, without proper access to water; hot water; food and toilet;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions during transport	8,500
34.	54312/19 07/10/2019	Islam Lechayevich TURPULKHANOV 1980	Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk Arkhangelsk Regional Court 18/11/2020	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport in single occupancy compartments of prison vans on several occasions from 16/03/2019 to 31/12/2020;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
35.	54933/19 01/10/2019	Aleksandr Andreyevich MAKAROV 1988	Abakan Town Court 29/05/2019		7,500
36.	54939/19 01/10/2019	Artem Mikhaylovich OREKHOVSKIY 1994	Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi 18/04/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – conditions of transport in a van between the remand prison and the district court on several occasions from 07/02/2019 to 18/04/2019 (overcrowding, lack of fresh air);   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
37.	56392/19 11/10/2019	Nikita Valeryevich SEVEROV 1990	Supreme Court of Russia (video-link) 12/04/2019		7,500
38.	56416/19 27/09/2019	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich POVOLOTSKIY 1988	Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 18/04/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – poor conditions of transport/ van, train, transit cell/ 15/10/2019 – 14/01/2020: overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to running water, poor quality of food	8,500
39.	58185/19 25/10/2019	Viktor Valeryevich RYZHOV 1981	Moshkovskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 02/10/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van, and detention in a transit cell: on 13/05-21/10/2019, on numerous occasions; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, lack of ventilation, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of privacy for toilet, poor quality of potable water, lack of or restricted access to leisure or educational activities	8,500
40.	58526/19 25/10/2019	Aleksandr Igorevich PETROV 1989	Moshkovski District Court of the Novosibirsk Region 24/10/2019		7,500
41.	58655/19 17/02/2020	Vladimir Olegovich LALETIN 1985	Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/09/2019		7,500
42.	60362/19 14/11/2019	Maksim Aleksandrovich NEMOSHKALOV 1987	Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen 16/05/2019		7,500
43.	61128/19 29/10/2019	Saitgaray Zakir ogly KAMALEYEV 1991	Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Tatarstan Republic 10/08/2020	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van and transit cell / 0.26 sq. m of personal space / overcrowding, restricted access to toilet. From 06/09/2018 to 10/07/2019; and transport on van on a number of occasions to take part in court hearings in the period from 09/01/2020 to 10/08/2020;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of poor conditions of detention during transport and against refusals of short-term family visits;   Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan – refusal of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits; Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 27/09/2019: possibility to request family visit only once the applicant is convicted.	9,750
44.	61164/19 09/11/2019	Zafar Nabiyevich YAKUBOV 1984	Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (by means of video-link from SIZO-1 Kazan) 03/09/2019	Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic, since 24/04/2018 and at least until the date when the application was lodged with the Court; refusal of long-term family visits from his wife;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – the applicant’s transport in a single-occupancy cubicle on numerous occasions for the duration of 1-2 hours in the period from 07/06/2019 to 24/06/2019 (lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient daylight, lack or insufficient artificial light, transport on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, etc.).	9,750
45.	62408/19 18/11/2019	Stanislav Valeriyevich BAKAYANOV 1988	Vorkuta Town Court 22/05/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport on 16-07/06/2019; by train; night-time journey, lack of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air	8,500
46.	62933/19 26/11/2019	Aleksandr Viktorovich GONCHAROV 1978	Izhemskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 21/06/2019	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 – on 06/10/2019 during the transfer in a train, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding	8,500
47.	63078/19 26/11/2019	Maksim Yuryevich MAKEYEV 1991	Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region 19/09/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van and detention in transit cells, 03/11/2017-19/09/2019, 0.25-1 sq. m of personal space, the applicant was transported on numerous occasions between the detention facilities and to take part in investigative actions or court hearings, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, passive smoking, mouldy or dirty cell, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light, accommodation with inmates under stricter regime, lack or inadequate furniture	8,500
48.	63216/19 25/11/2019	Dmitriy Vladimirovich IVASHKO 1976	Vasileostrovskiy District Court, Petrogradskiy District Court, Admiralteyskiy District Court, Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 155 in the Petrogradskiy District of St Petersburg and Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 45 in the Tsentralnyy District of St Petersburg (the latest hearing was held on 13/11/2019)	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – on multiple occasions between his remand prison and various courts in St Petersburg from 01/02/2018 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court (overcrowding, 0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space, inadequate furniture, lack of safety equipment, lack of natural light, insufficient electric light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no access to toilet);   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
49.	63392/19 26/11/2019	Ivan Mikhaylovich MARSHALKO 1984	Klintsy Town Court and the Bryansk Regional Court 30/05/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 1) transport on multiple occasions between the detention facilities and courts from 23/07/2018 to 05/07/2019 (overcrowding, 0.2-0.3 sq. m of personal space, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, restricted access to toilet, passive smoking). 2) conditions of transport by train on 31/05/2020 – 02/06/2020 (from SIZO‑1 Ryazan to SIZO-2 Yaroslavl) and on 20/06/2020 – 21/06/2020 (from SIZO-1 Yaroslavl to SIZO-1 Kirov), with the same grievances (plus lack or restricted access to potable water).	8,500

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.