{"id":21727,"date":"2023-11-23T11:07:27","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T11:07:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21727"},"modified":"2023-11-23T11:08:57","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T11:08:57","slug":"case-of-soldatov-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=21727","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF SOLDATOV 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":"

The European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. 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. 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.<\/p>\n

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 Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653\/13 and 60980\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).<\/p>\n

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 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SOLDATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 10881\/21 and 37 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n

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

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

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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<\/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 and\/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article\u00a03, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.<\/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 50-54, 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 Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653\/13 and 60980\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).<\/p>\n

10. 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 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 Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597\/13, \u00a7\u00a027, 26\u00a0March 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.<\/p>\n

14. 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 N.T. v. Russia, no.\u00a014727\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a032-57, 2\u00a0June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a018255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154\u201158, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Nakhmanovich v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a055669\/00, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a085-98, 2\u00a0March 2006, as regards unreasonable duration of the criminal proceedings; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a027057\/06 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect.<\/p>\n

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

15. 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

16. 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 that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 4935\/22 and 44999\/22 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a044363\/14 and 2 others, \u00a7 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895\/14 and 2 other applications, \u00a7 13, 15\u00a0September 2022). It further finds reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.<\/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 applications admissible;<\/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 a 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 concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage and\/or glass cabin during court hearings;<\/p>\n

7. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 4935\/22 and 44999\/22;<\/p>\n

8. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/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 23 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 Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Year of birth<\/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 (in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1.<\/td>\n10881\/21<\/p>\n

28\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Anton Borisovich SOLDATOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Dunayeva Alla Igorevna<\/p>\n

Chelyabinsk<\/td>\n

Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction<\/p>\n

30\/11\/2020<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n35403\/21<\/p>\n

06\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Anna Tamazovna KVASHINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSokolskiy District Court of the Vologda Region<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n3399\/22<\/p>\n

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

Yuriy Vitalyevich ADRIANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Volgograd<\/td>\n

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

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n4077\/22<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Yevgenyevich KOTLYAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nTosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – from 28\/02\/2020 \u2013 pending as of 16\/09\/2022; Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Leningrad Regional Court; last extension of pre-trial detention – 13\/07\/2021, upheld by the Leningrad Regional Court on appeal on 19\/08\/2021; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – decision of 13\/07\/2021 extending the applicant\u2019s detention on remand was upheld on appeal on 19\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n4477\/22<\/p>\n

30\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Artur Ilyasovich ABDULMUTALIBOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

Finashkin Andrey Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Kursk<\/td>\n

Kurskiy District Court of the Kursk Region<\/p>\n

01\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – the applicant was transported on numerous occasions between the remand prison and the courthouse in a single-prisoner cubicle measuring 0.5 sq. m. Due to the absence of free convoy cells at the courthouse the applicant was held in the prison van until the start of the hearings and during court breaks. There was no toilet in the van, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air. It appears that the most recent occasion of transport was on 30\/12\/2021<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n4755\/22<\/p>\n

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

Ilnur Amirovich FAYZULIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

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

16\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n4935\/22<\/p>\n

02\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Vadim Valeryevich ANIKEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nArkhangelsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van between the remand prison and the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 456 occasions between 25\/01\/2017 and ongoing as of 16\/09\/2022, 0.32 sq. m of personal space, van ceiling height 1.5 m, handcuffing, absence of safety belts, inadequate temperatures, transport took 50 minutes one way, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric and natural light, overcrowding, passive smoking;<\/p>\n

Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings – Proceedings pending since 14\/11\/2014 and at least until 16\/09\/2022; the applicant challenged the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts and was awarded RUB\u00a070,300 (approximately EUR\u00a0800), final decision 15\/09\/2022;<\/p>\n

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

–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n5234\/22<\/p>\n

03\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Pavel Petrovich PETROVSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nKirovskiy District Court of St\u00a0Petersburg, Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St\u00a0Petersburg, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – Transport on multiple occasions between 24\/01\/2019 and 31\/03\/2022, between 0.2 and 0.25 sq. m. of personal space, transport time – 2 hours per one-way trip, absence of toilet; poor conditions in assembly cells on the days of transport (20 to 30 inmates confined in the cell measuring 15\u00a0sq. m, no ventilation in the cell, the window could not be opened, no hot food on the days of transport, poor sanitary conditions).<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n5737\/22<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Vitaliy Vyacheslavovich KOREPANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

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

17\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – by van and train, 06\/05\/2021 – 17\/12\/2021, overcrowding (0.49 sq. m per person in the van and 0.29\u00a0sq. m per person on the train), absence of toilet on a 20-hour train ride, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, passive smoking;<\/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
10.<\/td>\n5808\/22<\/p>\n

14\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Borisovich OZEL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

Krikun Leonid Leonidovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Tver Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n5880\/22<\/p>\n

30\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Roman Alekseyevich MOKRUSHNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nNorilsk Town Court<\/p>\n

23\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n10838\/22<\/p>\n

19\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Vladimir Valeryevich ZAVALIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Nea Skiony<\/td>\n

Murmansk Regional Court<\/p>\n

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

Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Murmansk, 21\/05\/2021 – 29\/01\/2022, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and\/or shower room;<\/p>\n

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

7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n11410\/22<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1978<\/td>\n

Tsarenkov Mikhail Maisovich<\/p>\n

Molodezhnyy<\/td>\n

Tsentralniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention on remand, 14\/10\/2020 \u2013 pending as of 16\/09\/2022, Tsentralniy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalskiy Regional Court: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n11775\/22<\/p>\n

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

Aynur Azatovich YAKUPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Orel<\/td>\n

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan<\/p>\n

22\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention – 07\/04\/2020 -22\/12\/2021; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction:<\/p>\n

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts, failure to assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial, collective detention orders<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n12538\/22<\/p>\n

26\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1994<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nEzhvinskiy District Court of Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n13837\/22<\/p>\n

10\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1959<\/td>\n

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Taganrog<\/td>\n

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov\u2011on\u2011Don<\/p>\n

24\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n14047\/22<\/p>\n

04\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich DEMCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSysolskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi, Priluzskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

13\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n18252\/22<\/p>\n

17\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Sergeyevich ZAYCHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

24\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n19962\/22<\/p>\n

28\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nKanashskiy District Court of the Republic of Chuvashia<\/p>\n

01\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n20220\/22<\/p>\n

20\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Nurlan Vyacheslavovich USHAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nBelozerskiy District Court of the Vologda Region,<\/p>\n

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk, the Orenburg Region<\/p>\n

24\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n21519\/22<\/p>\n

28\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Vladimir Yuryevich CHEKULDAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nIvdel Town Court, Sorskiy District Court of the Republic of Khakassia, Abakan Town Court<\/p>\n

24\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n2,100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n21802\/22<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Natalya Yuryevna TOMILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Orel<\/td>\n

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

27\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n21968\/22<\/p>\n

23\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Leonid Vasilyevich FILIPPOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

Petrov Roman Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Cheboksary<\/td>\n

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

28\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n24229\/22<\/p>\n

21\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Sergeyevich VELICHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

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

01\/02\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n24928\/22<\/p>\n

27\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Igorevna MAKARENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSolntsevskiy District Court of Moscow<\/p>\n

19\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n25216\/22<\/p>\n

26\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Vasiliy Leonidovich GUZ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSupreme Court of the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

28\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n25271\/22<\/p>\n

13\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1981<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nOktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

14\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n25386\/22<\/p>\n

18\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Gennadyevich GERASIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

17\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n25461\/22<\/p>\n

22\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Denis Ruslanovich SULEYMANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

Kanayev Valeriy Viktorovich<\/p>\n

Diveyevo<\/td>\n

Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region<\/p>\n

13\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n26001\/22<\/p>\n

04\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Yuryevich ISAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nPerm Regional Court<\/p>\n

18\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime \u2013 the applicant has been serving his life imprisonment under strict regime since 25\/10\/1999 \u2013 pending as of 16\/09\/2022: confined to his cell (along with one or two other inmates) for twenty-two-and-a-half hours a day, lack of purposeful activity, extremely limited outside exercise, isolation from the rest of the prison community. Brought proceedings in order to have the regime of his detention altered with a milder one, but the domestic courts held that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility for those sentenced to life imprisonment to have the regime of their detention reviewed;<\/p>\n

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

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n27548\/22<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Vsevolodovich SPIRIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1995<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nJustice of the Peace of the Dimitrovskiy Court Circuit of Syktyvkar<\/p>\n

15\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n28788\/22<\/p>\n

10\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Sergey Anatolyevich BROZYANSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nKrasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n32085\/22<\/p>\n

03\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Maksudbek Dilshadovich KHUSANBAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

2001<\/td>\n

Zubitskiy Pavel Nikolayevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention \u2013<\/p>\n

Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, 22\/02\/2022 – reviewed by Moscow Regional Court, 29\/03\/2022;<\/p>\n

Naro-Fominsk Town Court of Moscow Region, 01\/04\/2022 – reviewed by Moscow Regional Court, 17\/05\/2022;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (3) – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion on 12\/01\/2022 and detained on remand on 14\/01\/2022: fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; 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>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n33684\/22<\/p>\n

20\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Olegovich DUBROVIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSovetskiy District Court of Krasnodar, Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n

(Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n34237\/22<\/p>\n

22\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Igorevich AFANASIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Ayrapetyan Narine Pavlovna<\/p>\n

Stavropol<\/td>\n

Kochyubeyevskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court<\/p>\n

23\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n41329\/22<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1991<\/td>\n

Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna<\/p>\n

Chita<\/td>\n

Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n42453\/22<\/p>\n

12\/08\/2022<\/td>\n

Yegor Sergeyevich AFANASYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna<\/p>\n

Chita<\/td>\n

Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction<\/p>\n

12\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n44999\/22<\/p>\n

10\/09\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vasilyevich KASARAKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude, Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia<\/p>\n

12\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

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