CASE OF KURILENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 18369/18 and 50 others

Last Updated on November 2, 2023 by LawEuro

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

---

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KURILENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18369/18 and 50 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 Kurilenko 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 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 CONVENTION on account of placement 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, 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103‑08, 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; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, § 66-83, 28 May 2019, concerning restrictions in connection with family visits for prisoners detained on remand and differential treatment in that respect).

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13. 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.”

14. 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 application no. 18369/18 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 the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

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 the appended table);

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

7. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 18369/18;

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 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	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.	18369/18 13/03/2018	Anatoliy Yuryevich KURILENKO 1989		Sverdlovsk Regional Court 29/09/2017		The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
2.	26113/18 27/05/2018	Timur Narimanovich UZBEKOV 1990	Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan	Privolzhskiy Circuit Garrison Court of Tatarstan 08/12/2017		5,500
3.	26771/18 20/05/2018	Yevgeniy Valentinovich CHAYKA 1967	Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich Moscow	Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow 29/12/2017		5,000
4.	28334/18 14/12/2018	Vitaliy Romanovich MIKITIN 1978		Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 27/06/2018		7,500
5.	46995/18 10/09/2018	Sergey Vladimirovich MISHIN 1970		Justice of the Peace of Syktyvkar 13/06/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train on 27/10/2018 – 28/10/2018, involving overnight stay without an allocated individual sleeping place (see Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, § 127, § 133, 9 April 2019), overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water.	8,500
6.	47302/18 21/02/2019	Denis Mikhaylovich SIDORENKOV 1972		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 17/01/2019	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – in convoy cells of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, from 17/01/2018 to 26/08/2019 (overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water);   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
7.	50217/18 04/10/2018	Boris Vladimirovich KUNITSYN 1989	Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar	Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 11/05/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – numerous occasions of transport by prison van (overcrowding) since 29/06/2015 and until the applicant’s release on 11/05/2018;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	6,200
8.	50296/18 04/10/2018	Yevgeniy Grigoryevich KAYDO 1986	Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar	Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 09/04/2018		7,500
9.	56524/18 07/11/2018	Aleksey Viktorovich LICHUTIN 1979	Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar	Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 11/05/2018		7,500
10.	57713/18 29/10/2018	Galina Nikolayevna AFANASYEVA 1993	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Surgut Town Court of the Khanty-Mansy Region 09/06/2018		7,500
11.	58921/18 26/11/2018	Dmitriy Sergeyevich ILYUKHIN 1992	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic 10/07/2018		7,500
12.	59050/18 20/04/2019	Andrey Aleksandrovich MENSHIKOV 1994		Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 27/11/2018	Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – SIZO-1 Tyumen, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits. The applicant was detained in SIZO between 15/03/2017 and 09/04/2019.   Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits	9,750
13.	59594/18 26/11/2018	Igor Olegovich BEREZOVSKIY 1991		Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic 07/08/2018		7,500
14.	1229/19 08/12/2018	Ruslan Anatolyevich GAZDAROV 1990	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Justice of the Peace of Tobolsk 31/07/2018		7,500
15.	1748/19 07/12/2018	Aleksandr Andreyevich YEFREMOV 1997		Tobolskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region 16/08/2018		7,500
16.	2970/19 08/12/2018	Vladimir Vladimirovich BOGATYREV 1983		Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region 29/08/2018		7,500
17.	3897/19 04/01/2019	Yevgeniy Vladislavovich ZHELTOVSKIY 1994	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region 23/11/2018		7,500
18.	4867/19 23/11/2018	Andrey Sergeyevich IGUSHEV 1979		Ukhta Town Court of Komi Republic 31/07/2020   Ukhta Town Court of the Komi Republic; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 18/09/2020   Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic 22/04/2021	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 23/11/2018, by train – insufficient number of sleeping places, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light; on 23/11/2018, by van – 0.6 sq. m., overcrowding, lack of or insufficient electric light; on 24/11/2019, by van – overcrowding	8,500
19.	6084/19 08/01/2019	Anatoliy Vyacheslavovich TSINKALOV 1997	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Tyumen Regional Court 12/11/2018		7,500
20.	6808/19 08/01/2019	Vitaliy Vitalyevich VOYTSEKHOV 1991	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Tyumen Regional Court 12/11/2018		7,500
21.	7047/19 14/01/2019	Azat Rifatovich TIMERZYANOV 1993	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen; Tyumen Regional Court 24/07/2018		7,500
22.	7396/19 24/12/2018	Nina Fedorovna TRAPSH 1944	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 31/10/2018		7,500
23.	7548/19 06/01/2019	Ilsur Inzilovich IDIYATULIN 1970	Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich Tyumen	Bavly Town Court of the Tatarstan Republic 20/07/2018;   Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic 02/10/2018		7,500
24.	8993/19 14/01/2019	Gennadiy Olegovich ISTOMIN 1998	Sarmasin Damir Fazylzhanovich Orsk	Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Orenburg 20/11/2018		7,500
25.	9077/19 22/01/2019	Rinaz Azatovich KHASHIMOV 1988		Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region 20/09/2018		7,500
26.	9844/19 22/01/2019	Georgiy Nikolayevich BORCHA 1992		Yarkovskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region 01/08/2018;   Tyumen Regional Court 27/09/2018		7,500
27.	10883/19 04/02/2019	Ruslan Lyufizovich SAYAFAROV 1992		Surgut Town Court the Khanty-Mansy Region 05/10/2018		7,500
28.	11751/19 28/01/2019	Aleksandr Anatolyevich PUYSHIS 1991	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Neman Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region 06/12/2018		7,500
29.	11801/19 28/01/2019	Vasiliy Borisovich KOLGANOV 1958	Berdiyev Artem Artykovich Samara	Samarskiy District Court of Samara 04/09/2018	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, 22/09/2016 – 04/09/2018, 0.2 sq. m., lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, numerous occasions of transport from the detention facility to the courthouse	8,500
30.	11852/19 28/01/2019	Mikhail Viktorovich NASENNIK 1983		Surgut Town Court of the Khanty-Mansy Region 27/08/2018		7,500
31.	12239/19 28/01/2019	Nikolay Sergeyevich NIKITENKO 1986	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Neman Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region 06/12/2018		7,500
32.	12241/19 28/02/2019	Maksim Viktorovich NIKITIN 1994	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Neman Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region 06/12/2018		7,500
33.	12790/19 16/02/2019	Yevgeniy Sergeyevich DUBROVIN 1992	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Tobolsk Town Court of the Tyumen Region 02/10/2018		7,500
34.	13742/19 19/02/2019	Sergey Sergeyevich POPOV 1998		Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 18/09/2018;   Tyumen Regional Court 01/11/2018		7,500
35.	14965/19 07/03/2019	Mikhail Andreyevich VAGANOV 1987	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 18/12/2018;   Zavodoukovskiy District Court of Tyumen 16/01/2019		7,500
36.	15519/19 22/04/2019	Aleksey Vladislavovich NECHAYEV 1993	Balog Natalya Andreyevna Krasnoyarsk	Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 27/06/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport on numerous occasions from the detention facility to the courthouse during the period between 24/08/2016 and 24/10/2018; by van and detention in a transit cell, severe overcrowding, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient natural light, no access to potable water, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of privacy for toilet, passive smoking;   Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport	8,500
37.	16826/19 12/03/2019	Aleksey Aleksandrovich KUKUSHKIN 1979		Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 21/11/2018		7,500
38.	18023/19 12/03/2019	Sergey Aleksandrovich STIKHARNYY 1973		Supreme Court of the Komi Republic 26/04/2019	Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by train and detention in transit cells from transport by train and detention in transit cells from 02/02/2019 to 23/02/2019; 0.3 sq. m. of personal space; overcrowding, passive smoking, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet	8,500
39.	18153/19 22/03/2019	Vitaliy Fedorovich KARPOV 1985	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen 10/01/2019;   Tyumen Regional Court 26/02/2019		7,500
40.	18506/19 27/03/2019	Aleksandr Lazarevich ARTYUSHKIN 1986	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Surgut Town Court the Khanty-Mansy Region 11/10/2018		7,500
41.	19437/19 27/03/2019	Aleksey Sergeyevich KOZHARIN 1974	Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary	Cherepovets Town Court, Vologda Regional Court 10/12/2018		7,500
42.	19711/19 29/03/2019	Aleksandr Aleksandrovich SEMENOV 1984		Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 10/12/2018		7,500
43.	20331/19 29/03/2019	Anastasiya Andreyevna KORNEVA 1998	Lukyanova Svetlana Anatolyevna Khanty-Mansiysk	Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen 18/03/2019		7,500
44.	21607/19 05/04/2019	Dmitriy Maksimovich KARAPATS 1979		Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg 15/02/2019		7,500
45.	23379/19 02/04/2019	Sergey Aleksandrovich MITSKEVICH 1991	Shirokov Oleg Valeryevich Nizhniy Tagil	Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg; Sverdlovsk Regional Court 18/01/2019		7,500
46.	24005/19 18/04/2019	Aleksandr Sergeyevich BYRKA 1986	Koneva Nina Filippovna Khanty-Mansiysk	Leninskiy District Court of Tyumen 26/03/2019		7,500
47.	24439/19 22/04/2019	Vitaliy Sergeyevich SIPYAGIN 1987		Inta Town Court of the Komi Republic 02/04/2018	Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by train and van from the pre-trial detention facility to the temporary police ward in another town to take part in the investigative actions; proceedings are still pending; transport on-going; insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking	8,500
48.	24933/19 15/04/2019	Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KORYTKO 1986		Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Orenburg 30/11/2018		7,500
49.	25538/19 21/04/2019	Roman Yevgenyevich NOVITSKIY 1992		Nefteyuganskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Region 13/11/2018		7,500
50.	25602/19 18/04/2019	Yevgeniy TABAK 1995	Koneva Nina Filippovna Khanty-Mansiysk	Nefteyuganskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Region 16/01/2019		7,500
51.	26586/19 18/04/2019	Rustam Sultanovich GORBAKOV 1987	Magomadov Andarbek Sharanovich Moscow	Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow 08/04/2019		7,500

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