The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Murzina and Averina v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. 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:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. In application no. 72855\/14, the applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08, 22\u00a0May 2012; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard).<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. In application no.\u00a0816\/18, the applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of application no.\u00a0816\/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 15. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 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,\u00a0and the remainder of application no. 816\/18 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;<\/p>\n 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 appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF MURZINA AND AVERINA v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 72855\/14 and 816\/18)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(use of metal cages in courtrooms)<\/p>\n