The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Gvozdev v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application 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 21 May 2019.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 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\u00a0Slyadnev 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\u00a0January 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 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant\u2019s confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him amounted to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 8. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 9. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 3 and 13 of 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 120-50, 23 March 2016, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 49-90, 8 January 2013, as regards medical negligence in detention and lack of effective remedies in that connection (for further details see appended table).<\/p>\n III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. The applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11. 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 the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. 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 13. 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 sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14. 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. 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, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the applicant\u2019s placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him;<\/p>\n 3. 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 4. Holds<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 1 December 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 \u00a0Darian Pavli ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF GVOZDEV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 29606\/19)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 December 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,
\nand ViktoriyaMaradudina,Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(use of metal cages in courtrooms)<\/p>\n