CASE OF PANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 14228/18 and 37 others

Last Updated on November 2, 2023 by LawEuro

The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. 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.

---

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF PANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14228/18 and 37 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 Panin 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 ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

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, which reads as follows:

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

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.”

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, 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.

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 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. 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).

IV. 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 Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; 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; Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, concerning the authorities’ failure to secure an immediate release of a detainee; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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; and Pal v. the United Kingdom, no. 44261/19, §§ 39-63, 30 November 2021, related to criminal arrest and prosecution in breach of Article 10 of the Convention).

V. remaining complaints

13. Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention by Mr Kurmoyarov, the applicant in application no. 56493/22 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

VI. 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), the Court considers 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. Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the applicants’ placement in a metal cage in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them and the absence of an effective remedy to complain in that regard, and other complaints, raised under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 raised by Mr Kurmoyarov in application no. 56493/22;

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 well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

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

7. 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	Representative’s name and location	Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment 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.	14228/18 06/03/2018	Denis Vladimirovich PANIN 1978	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow	Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Video link from SIZO-5, Kashira 26/10/2017		7,500
2.	21314/18 16/04/2018	Ivan Aleksandrovich FEDORYAK 1989	Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna Rostov-on-Don	Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don 26/12/2017		7,500
3.	37081/18 23/07/2018	Yevgeniy Leonidovich PAYUSOV 1978		Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk 24/01/2018;   Arkhangelsk Regional Court 27/03/2018		7,500
4.	46898/18 17/09/2018	Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV 1978		Vologda Town Court, Vologda Regional Court 26/03/2018		7,500
5.	53355/18 29/10/2018	Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAVYALOV 1983		Chistopol Town Court 04/05/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – on 18/07/2018: van, lack of fresh air, overcrowding – transported with 20 inmates; the transfer lasted three hours;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – IK‑11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region, since 01/09/2018 – ongoing on the date of lodging the application with the Court, 1.8. sq. m of personal space, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention	16,300
6.	53394/18 26/10/2018	Igor Vladimirovich USHAKOV 1982		Ramenskoye Town Court 05/05/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – (1) from 20/04/2017 to 05/05/2018; more than 20 transfers, van, convoy cells; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, restricted access to toilet, insufficient quantity of food, inadequate temperature; the applicant was placed in a single compartment measuring 0.3 sq. m., on certain occasions another inmate was placed in the same compartment with the applicant; transfers lasted 6 hours; (2) from 05/05/2018 to 03/09/2018 by train from the pre-trial detention facility to the colony via numerous transit facilities: overcrowdin), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	9,750
7.	59246/18 26/11/2018	Viktor Igorevich ABRAMOV 1990		Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 16/07/2018		7,500
8.	59610/18 26/11/2018	Azamat Vagizovich MIRKHAYDAROV 1971	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 18/07/2018		7,500
9.	59865/18 26/11/2018	Denis Igorevich KAZANOVSKIY 1996	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Surgut Town Court 28/05/2018		7,500
10.	269/19 20/04/2019	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KRAVCHENKO 1978		Pskov Regional Court 09/01/2019		7,500
11.	1475/19 20/12/2018	Sergey Sergeyevich BORISIKHIN 1974	Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary	Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, numerous hearings with the most recent on the date of conviction: 29/06/2018	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 20/09/2018 to 13/10/2018, 0.2‑0.5 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food	8,500
12.	1494/19 07/12/2018	Ramil Failevich KALIYEV 1980		Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 03/09/2018		7,500
13.	2124/19 01/12/2018	Dmitriy Andreyevich KUZNETSOV 2000		Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad 06/07/2018		7,500
14.	2253/19 17/12/2018	Aleksey Vyacheslavovich NOSKOV 1994		Belovo Town Court of Kemerovo Region 16/08/2018		7,500
15.	4039/19 04/01/2019	Ilgar Elshan ogly GUSEYNOV 1987	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad 20/11/2018		7,500
16.	6727/19 08/01/2019	Vitaliy Aleksandrovich PRISHIBSKIY 1991	Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich Moscow	Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk, Orenburg Regional Court via video link from SIZO-2, Orsk 09/07/2018		7,500
17.	11677/19 06/02/2019	Denis Yuryevich VYSOTSKIY 1989	Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog	Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region 08/05/2019	Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 25/11/2018 to 25/05/2019 based exclusively on the gravity of the charges (drug dealing); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;   Art. 8 (1) – secret surveillance phone tapping pursuant to the order of the Taganrog Town Court of 17/09/2018. Specific defects: the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”. The applicant learnt about phone tapping on 18/01/2019 at the latest. He was allowed to study the relevant documents in July 2019.	9,750
18.	13173/19 17/02/2019	Liliya Aleksandrovna MARINICHEVA 1970	Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich Moscow	Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court 03/12/2020	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, van; from 04/06/2014 to 04/09/2018, 0.2 sq. m per inmate; overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature;   Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – 4 days of unlawful detention. On 03/12/2020 the Samara Regional Court reviewed the applicant’s sentence on appeal and ruled for release of the applicant. The applicant was released only on 07/12/2020 due to administrative formalities (she was participating in the appeal hearing via video link, prison administration waited for a certified copy of the decision; the distance between the court and the facility is around 200 km)	9,750
19.	14055/19 20/12/2018	Igor Gennadyevich CHEPCHIN 1980	Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna St Petersburg	Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; Leningrad Regional Court 10/07/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, from 17/12/2015 to 10/07/2018, 0.4 sq. m. per inmate, inadequate temperature, lack of seat belts, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no food. The transfers lasted up to 8 hours;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
20.	17426/19 13/03/2019	Sergey Aysarovich KONOVALOV 1984		Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 15/10/2018		7,500
21.	19319/19 27/03/2019	Vyacheslav Vladimirovich STETSIK 1995		Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region 09/11/2018		7,500
22.	32916/19 13/06/2019	Boris Muzarachevich KALMYKOV 1960	Goncharenko Natalya Germanovna Chita	Zabaykalskiy Regional Court 11/01/2019		7,500
23.	34376/19 06/06/2019	Dmitriy Valentinovich MIKHAYLOV 1990		Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/10/2018		7,500
24.	34586/19 19/06/2019	Dinar Fanitovich SADIROV 1993		Verkhniy Uslon District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan 21/12/2018		7,500
25.	46611/20 30/09/2020	Pavel Andreyevich MELNIKOV 1994	Sommer Ulrich Köln	Syktyvdvinskiy District Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 01/06/2020	Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Syktyvkar Komi Republic, 08/11/2018 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged; detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by train on 07/06/2020 and 12/07/2020 – overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, transport for more than 24 hours.	8,500
26.	46237/21 30/08/2021	Maksim Vladimirovich SHLEGEL 1977		Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court (via videoconference), 21/06/2021	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – in vans from 29/03/2021 to 04/06/2021, overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m. of personal space, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet; the journeys lasted approximately 3 to 6 hours	8,500
27.	46509/21 22/08/2021	Nikolay Valentinovich KONDRATYUK 1978		Onezhsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Justice of the Peace no. 2 of Onezhskiy Judicial District of Arkhangelsk Region 29/10/2021		7,500
28.	47606/21 07/09/2021	Yevgeniy Vladimirovich FINOGENOV 1969		Khabarovsk Regional Court 18/03/2021   Sol-Iletskiy District Court of Orenburg Region 25/03/2021		7,500
29.	57503/21 02/11/2021	Dmitriy Vasilyevich NOSKOV 1977	Noskova Tatyana Valeryevna Irkutsk	Kirovskiy District Court;   Video link from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region   Irkutsk Garrison Military Court   Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk 28/12/2021	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – conditions of the applicant’s transport by van from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region to the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk in a single-prisoner cubicle on numerous occasions in the period from 23/01/2020 to 26/10/2021, lack of fresh air, 0.5 sq. m. of personal space, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – 12/12/2019-21/10/2021, Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial;   Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region; 13/12/2019 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court; detention in different cells with video surveillance.	9,750
30.	60247/21 23/11/2021	Eduard Anatolyevich SMOLNIKOV 1966		Syktyvkar District Court, Supreme Court of Komi Republic From 23/04/2021 to 11/11/2021		7,500
31.	3038/22 08/12/2021	Maksim Aleksandrovich VASILYEV 1982		Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg (in the courthouse); St Petersburg City Court (video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg) From 04/06/2021 to 09/02/2022		7,500
32.	3347/22 23/12/2021	Aleksandr Serafimovich KIRSEYEV 1954		Second Court of Appeal (video link from SIZO-1, Komi Republic) 01/09/2021		7,500
33.	4451/22 16/12/2021	Makar Maksimovich RUFOV 2000		Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic 13/07/2021	Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Komi Republic, 16/02/2020 – 15/11/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities	7,500
34.	5773/22 01/12/2021	Oleg Mikhaylovich KOROLEV 1979		Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (video-link from SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region), from 30/06/2021 to 20/07/2021		7,500
35.	6177/22 23/03/2022	Nikolay Vasilyevich TARATYNKO 1989		Ezhvinskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 01/12/2021; Katayevskiy District Court of the Komi Republic 18/03/2022		7,500
36.	18565/22 14/03/2022	Yevgeniy Vladimirovich VASILYEV 1976		Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 141 of the Nizhneingashskiy District of the Krasnoyarsk Region from 15/03/2019 to 25/02/2022	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport   transport on numerous occasions to the court hearings and for studying his casefile in the period from 25/01/2017 to 25/02/2022 in a single-prisoner cubicle (“stakan”), duration of transport of about 2.5 to 5 hours on each occasion, applicant transported on numerous occasions, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, insufficient personal space.	8,500
37.	33410/22 17/06/2022	Vyacheslav Iosifovich CHIZHINOK 1982		Supreme Court of Komi Republic 24/12/2021		7,500
38.	56493/22 18/11/2022	Ioann Valeryevich KURMOYAROV 1968	Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg	St Petersburg City Court Video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg, from 20/07/2022 to 16/09/2022	Art. 10 (1) – various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – arrest and criminal prosecution under Article 207.3 § 2 – d (“д”) for publishing anti-war video recordings in social network Vkontakte between 06/03/2022 and 05/04/2022;   Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – the St Petersburg City Court reviewed the detention orders of the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 28/07/2022 on 31/08/2022;   Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – pre-trial detention on the charges of spreading intentionally “fake” news about the Russian armed forced is pending as of 16/09/2022 (since 08/06/2022); detention orders issued by the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court. Specific defects: use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint	9,750

 

 

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