{"id":21487,"date":"2023-11-02T13:50:17","date_gmt":"2023-11-02T13:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21487"},"modified":"2023-11-02T13:50:17","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T13:50:17","slug":"case-of-yeliseyeva-and-others-v-russia-the-applicants-complained-about-their-confinement-in-a-metal-cage-in-the-courtroom-during-the-criminal-proceedings-against-them-and-or-during-the-administrativ","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21487","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF YELISEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them and\/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party"},"content":{"rendered":"

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 and\/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF YELISEYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 15304\/19 and 39 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n2 November 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Yeliseyeva and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc,
\nDavor Deren\u010dinovi\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

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 and\/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. Some applicants 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. Jurisdiction<\/strong><\/p>\n

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, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17 January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES\u00a03 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them and\/or during the administrative proceedings to which they were parties. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial and\/or administrative proceedings to which they were a party. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.\u00a0Russia [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\u00a03 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a050-54, 17 April 2018).<\/p>\n

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\u2019 confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them and\/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

11. Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article\u00a013 of the Convention (see\u00a0Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no.\u00a010597\/13, \u00a7\u00a027, 26 March 2019).<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

12. Some applicants 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08, 22\u00a0May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10\u00a0and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a092-156, 9\u00a0April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108-11, 27\u00a0November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a027057\/06\u00a0and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov\u00a0v. Russia, nos.\u00a011157\/04 and\u00a015162\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0101-12, 4\u00a0July 2013, concerning ineligibility for convicted prisoners to vote in or stand for elections. It further concludes that no separate issue arises under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in application no. 50736\/21.<\/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

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as set out in the appended table), admissible and finds that that no separate issue arises under Article\u00a014 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol\u00a0No.\u00a01 to the Convention in application no. 50736\/21;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention on account of the applicants\u2019 placement in a metal cage during court hearings;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage during court hearings;<\/p>\n

7. 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 2 November 2023, 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 \u00a0Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nName of the court<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of the relevant judgment<\/strong><\/td>\n

Other complaints under<\/strong><\/p>\n

well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n15304\/19<\/p>\n

04\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

Olesya Viktorovna YELISEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Yezerskiy Aleksey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Samara<\/td>\n

Samarskiy District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court<\/p>\n

04\/09\/2018<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n1739\/20<\/p>\n

18\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

date of the relevant judgment unspecified;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n

18\/06\/2019<\/p>\n

1st applicant;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n

26\/03\/2020<\/p>\n

2nd applicant;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Court of Appeal, Third Cassation Court<\/p>\n

23\/06\/2021<\/p>\n

2nd applicant;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appeal Court, Third Cassation Court, Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n

19\/07\/2021;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

28\/02\/2022<\/p>\n

1st applicant<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n40664\/20<\/p>\n

24\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Valeryevich KOTCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, Fifth Appeal Court<\/p>\n

10\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n50736\/21<\/p>\n

04\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilya Mikhaylovich TONKIKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Syktyvkar Town Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

29\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – IZ-1 Republic of Komi (detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators) from 06\/01\/2021 to 02\/09\/2021;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Prot. 1 Art. 3 – ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections – Impossibility for the applicant as a prisoner to vote in elections, including elections to the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament on 19\/09\/\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n53112\/21<\/p>\n

06\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Viktor Nikolayevich SHCHEGLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kupinskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n58425\/21<\/p>\n

28\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Eduard Vyacheslavovich NIKOLAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n58434\/21<\/p>\n

01\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Konstantinovich SHMELEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

05\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n58665\/21<\/p>\n

03\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Anvar Urazgaleyevich KALDAMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Onega Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region<\/p>\n

20\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n58731\/21<\/p>\n

11\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Takhir Rashitovich AKHMETSHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

St Petersburg Second Appellate Court<\/p>\n

13\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n59214\/21<\/p>\n

11\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Aleksandrovich GUSHCHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Slobodskoy District Court of the Kirov Region<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n59559\/21<\/p>\n

22\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Ivanovich DEVYATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Argayashskiy District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region<\/p>\n

06\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n59575\/21<\/p>\n

21\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Anatoliy Aleksandrovich BESSONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

29\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n59729\/21<\/p>\n

16\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Nikolay Sergeyevich KLEMETS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

10\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n60502\/21<\/p>\n

20\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Pavel Vladimirovich AGAFUROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul, Altay Regional Court<\/p>\n

30\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n60503\/21<\/p>\n

07\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Olga Aleksandrovna LOGINOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n60504\/21<\/p>\n

17\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Vadimovich TROFIMENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd<\/p>\n

Since 06\/07\/2021 –<\/p>\n

end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n60505\/21<\/p>\n

25\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Fenil Minnereisovich SMENOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Batyrevskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia<\/p>\n

19\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n60844\/21<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Anatolyevich ARTEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

31\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n61017\/21<\/p>\n

25\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Nikita Sergeyevich FEDOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n61023\/21<\/p>\n

17\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich KUZMINYKH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sovetsk Town Court of the Kirov Region<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n61081\/21<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Valentinovich OVCHINNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk<\/p>\n

24\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n61378\/21<\/p>\n

27\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Leonidovich SAFRONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

28\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n61384\/21<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Alekseyevich MOKROUSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Leninskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n61390\/21<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Vladimirovich SHADRIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

29\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Novosibirsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

13\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n61592\/21<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Nikolay Nikolayevich BOGOLYUBOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

Korneyev Aleksey Igorevich<\/p>\n

Bryansk<\/td>\n

Leninskiy District Court of Kursk<\/p>\n

24\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n61654\/21<\/p>\n

04\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Faridun Yatimovich DOSTIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan, Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court<\/p>\n

08\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n111\/22<\/p>\n

22\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Roman Nikolayevich STARKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Justice of the Peace of the 70-th Judicial District of Kirov<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n179\/22<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Aleksandrovich RYZHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, train, from 28\/10\/2021 to 20\/12\/2021, 0.2-0.4 sq. m. of personal space, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport<\/td>\n

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n180\/22<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Vladimirovich FADEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2000<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kazan Garrison Military Court<\/p>\n

21\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – IZ-1 Republic of Tatarstan, 13\/03\/2021-16\/07\/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n466\/22<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Alekseyevich DYUZHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/td>\n

Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd<\/p>\n

25\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n597\/22<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Albert Dinariyevich SAYFULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Khaziyeva Elvira Ilgizovna<\/p>\n

Almetyevsk<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n

02\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n613\/22<\/p>\n

14\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Sergey Viktorovich OKHAPKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov<\/p>\n

09\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n793\/22<\/p>\n

20\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich MATYASKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Orel<\/td>\n

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Sovetskiy District Court of Samara, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan<\/p>\n

27\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention in custody from 27\/04\/2017 to 27\/07\/2021, collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n835\/22<\/p>\n

26\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Gennadyevich KRUGLYANIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

since 28\/11\/2017 – end date is unknown, placement in metal cage was ongoing on the date when the application was lodged<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention since 28\/11\/2017 and ongoing at the time when the application was lodged with the Court. Specific defects: as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n985\/22<\/p>\n

15\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Sergey Vladimirovich YEGOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1967<\/td>\n

Panshina Yelena Nikolayevna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n1077\/22<\/p>\n

15\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Yuryevich GONCHAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

29\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n2243\/22<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Nikolayevich AGAFONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

15\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n2245\/22<\/p>\n

10\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Denis Aleksandrovich SOLOVYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

18\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n2246\/22<\/p>\n

13\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Marat Radifovich KHANNANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan<\/p>\n

30\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n2247\/22<\/p>\n

21\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Grigoriy Aleksandrovich ZINOVYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2021<\/p>\n

Sysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

21\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n