{"id":21493,"date":"2023-11-02T13:59:18","date_gmt":"2023-11-02T13:59:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21493"},"modified":"2023-11-02T13:59:18","modified_gmt":"2023-11-02T13:59:18","slug":"case-of-kashuba-and-others-v-russia-the-applicants-complained-about-their-confinement-in-a-metal-cage-and-or-a-glass-cabin-in-the-courtroom-during-the-criminal-proceedings-against-them","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21493","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and\/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them"},"content":{"rendered":"

Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the applicants\u2019 confinement in a metal cage and\/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them 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 KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 56247\/15 and 47 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 Kashuba 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 and\/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. 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<\/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 and\/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. 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. 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\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. 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. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see\u00a0Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.\u00a02653\/13\u00a0and\u00a060980\/14, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0123-28, 4\u00a0October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the\u00a0glass cabin\u00a0led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and\u00a0Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a038004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0144-50, 17\u00a0July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by\u00a0armed\u00a0police officers and\u00a0court\u00a0ushers and\u00a0a guard dog\u00a0having been present\u00a0next to it\u00a0in the courtroom).<\/p>\n

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, and having taken into account the issue of compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see\u00a0Saakashvili\u00a0v.\u00a0Georgia\u00a0(dec.), nos.\u00a06232\/20\u00a0and 22394\/20, \u00a7\u00a7 46-59, 1 March 2022, in which the Court addressed the COVID-related extension of the period in question),\u00a0the 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 cases the applicants\u2019 confinement in a metal cage and\/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.<\/p>\n

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

12. 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

13. 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 Tomov\u00a0and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10\u00a0and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9\u00a0April 2019, as regards the inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this connection; Fortalnov\u00a0and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a07077\/06\u00a0and 12 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a076-87, 26 June 2018, as regards the unlawful deprivation of liberty; Dirdizov\u00a0v. Russia, no.\u00a041461\/10, 27\u00a0November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre\u2011trial detention; Idalov v. Russia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154-58, 22\u00a0May 2012, as regards the lack of a speedy review of the detention matters; Kuzmina and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a066152\/14\u00a0and 8\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a085-105, 20\u00a0April 2021, as regards the police entrapment in the context of investigating offences concerning illegal distribution of drugs; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no.\u00a038004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0145-50 and 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and\u00a0privately with\u00a0a lawyer during the trial; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no.\u00a043149\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a035-57, 13\u00a0February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Chaldayev v. Russia, no.\u00a033172\/16, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-83, 28\u00a0May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities.<\/p>\n

V. REMAINING COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n

14. Lastly, the applicant in application no.\u00a01798\/17 raised a complaint under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about his inability to obtain attendance and examination of defence witnesses.<\/p>\n

15. The Court has examined this complaint 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, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

16. 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

17. 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 September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and\/or glass cabins in courtrooms, under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about the use of those security arrangements in the courtrooms, and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no.\u00a01798\/17 inadmissible;<\/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 and\/or glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention 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 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about their placement in a metal cage or glass cabin in a courtroom;<\/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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/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\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 well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount 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>\n56247\/15<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2015<\/td>\n

Viktor Petrovich KASHUBA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

Ivannikov Vladimir Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/td>\n

Kursk Regional Court<\/p>\n

(by video link from the remand prison where the applicant was placed in a cage)<\/p>\n

13\/05\/2015<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n4707\/16<\/p>\n

28\/12\/2015<\/td>\n

Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (By video link from SIZO-2 Moscow)<\/p>\n

28\/11\/2017<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – The applicant was arrested by the police at 8 a.m. on 03\/06\/2015. An arrest record was drawn up seventeen hours later, at<\/p>\n

1 a.m. on 04\/06\/2015. The applicant unsuccessfully raised this complaint before the courts when the measure of restraint was examined<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n50477\/16<\/p>\n

22\/08\/2016<\/td>\n

Mikhail Aleksandrovich LEONTYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Romanchenko Lyudmila Ivanovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of Russia (by video link from the remand prison while being placed in a metal cage)<\/p>\n

24\/03\/2016<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n1798\/17<\/p>\n

09\/12\/2016<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Borisovich ZHURAVLEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Vikharev Aleksandr Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Sovetsk<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Kaliningrad<\/p>\n

21\/06\/2016<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n15951\/17<\/p>\n

15\/02\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Tarielyevich TABUTSADZE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Pugachev Sergey Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Moscow Regional Court<\/p>\n

16\/08\/2016<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n25006\/17<\/p>\n

11\/03\/2017<\/td>\n

Yuriy Vladimirovich ALDOKHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Chelyabinsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2016<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n75975\/17<\/p>\n

13\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Larisa Dmitriyevna DUBINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/td>\n

Zlobin Sergey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Volgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

17\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n76908\/17<\/p>\n

17\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Viktorovich DUBOVITSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Volgograd Regional Court<\/p>\n

19\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n80915\/17<\/p>\n

28\/10\/2017<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vitalyevich PROTOPOPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

Vasilyev Aleksey Anatolyevich<\/p>\n

Izhevsk<\/td>\n

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

03\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n4794\/18<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2018<\/td>\n

Maksim Alekseyevich VOLKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Polikarkin Vladislav Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

02\/08\/2017<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) – unfair conviction for an offence committed as a result of entrapment by State agents – The investigating authority took the initiative to contact the applicant through their agent, the applicant\u2019s acquaintance D. The latter sent the applicant 6 sms messages complaining of withdrawal symptoms and called him asking to buy 2 gr of amphetamine for him, which amounted to incitement<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n10606\/18<\/p>\n

22\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

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

1979<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg (confinement in a glass cabin with a personal space of<\/p>\n

< 0.4 sq. m, and in extreme temperatures during summer; lack of fresh air)<\/p>\n

27\/12\/2017<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n3857\/19<\/p>\n

17\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Fatima Kazbekovna NAYFONOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

Bezrukova Kseniya Yevgenyevna<\/p>\n

Moskow<\/td>\n

Moscow City Court<\/p>\n

(placement in a glass cabin, in the following conditions: overcrowding, insufficient space, lack of fresh air, on more than 25 occasions)<\/p>\n

26\/06\/2018<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, from 26\/01\/2018 to 26\/06\/2018, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, passive smoking; less than 0.6 sq. m. per inmate in a van, insufficient light;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n24983\/19<\/p>\n

10\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Ivan Yuryevich MANKOVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Mankovskaya Svetlana Petrovna<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (glass cabin, overcrowding, 8 co-defendants contained in the glass cabin designed for 4, insufficient number of seats, poor ventilation and audibility inside the cabin)<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n29009\/19<\/p>\n

22\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Borisovich NOVIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

07\/02\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – van, transit cell from 23\/10\/2017 to 20\/03\/2019, 0.3 sq. m, overcrowding, applicant transported on numerous occasions, inadequate temperature, passive smoking;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n36322\/19<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Nikolay Leontyevich PONYATOVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Surgut Town Court<\/p>\n

09\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n37228\/19<\/p>\n

25\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

Vladimir Vladimirovich PROKHORTSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg<\/p>\n

18\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by prison van, from IZ-47\/1 – Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg, multiple occasions between 10\/04\/2018 and 18\/04\/2019;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n37365\/19<\/p>\n

26\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

Sergey Yuryevich TOMILIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Tsentralniy District Court of Tyumen<\/p>\n

25\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n38138\/19<\/p>\n

05\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Yekaterina Sergeyevna KOVALEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Dvoryak Vladimir Gennadyevich<\/p>\n

Abakan<\/td>\n

Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia;<\/p>\n

Abakan Town Court<\/p>\n

05\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n38403\/19<\/p>\n

10\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

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

1976<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

26\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n39033\/19<\/p>\n

10\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Yefimov Vitaliy Olegovich<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/td>\n

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

17\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

(by video link from the remand prison)<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n46043\/19<\/p>\n

19\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

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

1980<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Ust-Vymskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

27\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n50701\/19<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Denis Savelyevich ZDOROVTSOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

Egle Denis Sergeyevich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

29\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n54754\/19<\/p>\n

21\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

Ivan Sergeyevich FADEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Petrov Roman Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/td>\n

Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region<\/p>\n

11\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – transport by van and train; from 20\/05\/2019 to 01\/07\/2019; less than 0.4 sq. m of personal space; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n55703\/19<\/p>\n

08\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Pavlovich SHTRUMBERGER<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Abakan Town Court of the Republic of Khakassia<\/p>\n

16\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – on 08\/08\/2019-09\/08\/2019, transport by train lasting for around 20 hours; passive smoking, lack of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of privacy for toilet;<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n57542\/19<\/p>\n

22\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

Vadim Andreyevich KHARITONOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Severodvinsk Town Court, Arkhangelsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

11\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n64754\/19<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksey Sergeyevich DZHIGAYLO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg<\/p>\n

19\/07\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n2083\/20<\/p>\n

07\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Ivan Ivanovich KALINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Vsevolzhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court, video link from IK-4, Leningrad region<\/p>\n

15\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n24936\/20<\/p>\n

31\/05\/2020<\/td>\n

Yuriy Vasilyevich VASYUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kaluga Regional Court (by way of videoconference)<\/p>\n

05\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train, van form 23\/01\/2020 to 11\/02\/2020, applicant transported on numerous occasions, bunk beds, inadequate temperature, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n27102\/20<\/p>\n

25\/05\/2020<\/td>\n

Pavel Nikolayevich GRISHANIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

14\/10\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n27114\/20<\/p>\n

01\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

Larisa Ildarovna KHALITOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

18\/09\/2019 – on-going placement in a metal cage on the date when the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n27291\/20<\/p>\n

12\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

Yan Dmitriyevich KOVALEVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg<\/p>\n

12\/09\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n46141\/20<\/p>\n

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

Anton Yuryevich GOLUBKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

13\/12\/2019<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n46153\/20<\/p>\n

11\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Yuliya Valeryevna VAKHRUSHEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Traktorozavodskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk<\/p>\n

15\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n48160\/20<\/p>\n

07\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Sergeyevich OSETROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

31\/08\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n53405\/20<\/p>\n

05\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Vladimir Anatolyevich GAFAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/td>\n

Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

08\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n54562\/20<\/p>\n

19\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1973<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

29\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n3328\/21<\/p>\n

08\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Igor Andreyevich CHUPROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

09\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n3834\/21<\/p>\n

02\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Olegovich KANATCHIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/td>\n

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

03\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n4528\/21<\/p>\n

12\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Viktorovich DERNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kirovsky District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court (by way of video link from the remand prison)<\/p>\n

13\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n7298\/21<\/p>\n

29\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Karen Gagikovich SARGSYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Ustyuzhaninov Dmitriy Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

St Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

(confinement in glass cabins with 8-9 co-defendants: 0.63\u00a0sq.\u00a0m. of personal space (hearing rooms nos. 21, 38, 48, 58, 68); extreme overcrowding, lack of fresh air, extreme temperatures)<\/p>\n

On-going placement on the date when the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, collective detention orders, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re\u2011offending, colluding or absconding, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. Detention since 06\/04\/2018 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged with the Court.<\/p>\n

Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg;<\/p>\n

St Petersburg City Court; Second Appeal Court of general jurisdiction<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41.<\/td>\n7564\/21<\/p>\n

15\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Chechen Savelyevich OGLY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

05\/10\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42.<\/td>\n7993\/21<\/p>\n

10\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1984<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Talmenskiy District Court of the Altay Region<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43.<\/td>\n8208\/21<\/p>\n

20\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Valeryevich USOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

07\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44.<\/td>\n8800\/21<\/p>\n

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

Dmitriy Konstantinovich VARAVKA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

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

16\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 8 (1) – restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities – refusals of long-term family visits from the applicant\u2019s live-in partner and children in the SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk, 25\/02\/2019 \u2013 to 16\/09\/2022; restrictions during short-term visits (physical separation);<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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\u2011term family visits<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45.<\/td>\n9049\/21<\/p>\n

12\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Gennadyevich TYURIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/td>\n

Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

14\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
46.<\/td>\n19698\/21<\/p>\n

16\/03\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Valeryevich USENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (in both courts confinement in a glass cabin, with the applicant suffering from the lack of ventilation, extreme temperatures leading to the applicant suffering from shortness of breath and the need to call ambulance)<\/p>\n

17\/09\/2020<\/td>\n

Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) \u2013 unfair criminal proceedings in view of the lack of possibility for the applicant to confer privately with the lawyer as a result of the use of the security arrangement. Complaint raised during the trial and on appeal<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
47.<\/td>\n25111\/21<\/p>\n

29\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Sabukhi Agakerimovich MURADKHANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Semyanovskiy Dmitriy Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Astrakhan<\/td>\n

Astrakhan Regional Court (by way of videoconference from the detention facility), Trusovskoy District Court of Astrakhan<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
48.<\/td>\n9328\/22<\/p>\n

10\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Vladimirovich BOROVIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

Krikun Leonid Leonidovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Arkhangelsk Regional Court; Video link from SIZO-1, Kirov Region<\/p>\n

15\/07\/2021<\/p>\n

Third Cassation Court; Video link from SIZO-4, Arkhangelsk Region<\/p>\n

23\/12\/2021<\/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