{"id":21730,"date":"2023-11-23T11:24:02","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T11:24:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21730"},"modified":"2023-11-23T11:24:42","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T11:24:42","slug":"case-of-grishin-and-others-v-russia-the-applicants-complained-about-their-confinement-in-a-metal-cage-in-the-courtroom-during-the-criminal-proceedings-against-them-or-during-the-administrative-proc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21730","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF GRISHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party"},"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 and\/or administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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

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

\n

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

European Court of Human Rights
\nFOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF GRISHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 44437\/21 and 30 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 Grishin 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 in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them 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 or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. 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 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 50-54, 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 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

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.<\/p>\n

13. 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 [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, 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; and Idalov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters.<\/p>\n

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

14. 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

15. 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 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 before the court during their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings;<\/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 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 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 Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar\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
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>\n44437\/21<\/p>\n

30\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Nikita Nikolayevich GRISHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nZheleznodorozhniy and Sverdlovskiy District Courts of Krasnoyarsk<\/p>\n

19\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n46219\/21<\/p>\n

30\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Nikolayevich SOLOVYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1998<\/td>\n

Semenov Ilya Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Vologda<\/td>\n

Vologda Regional Court<\/p>\n

22\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n46407\/21<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Mikhaylovich SUKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nJustice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Solombalskiy District of Arkhangelsk, Justice of the Peace of the 1st Judicial Circuit of the Primorskiy District of the Arkhangelsk Region<\/p>\n

07\/05\/2021, 09\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n46550\/21<\/p>\n

23\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Vladimirovich VIKTOROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSolombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk 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
5.<\/td>\n46613\/21<\/p>\n

01\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Yuryevich LOGINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n47217\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1979<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n52087\/21<\/p>\n

27\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Yuliya Anatolyevna LUTAY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nPodolsk Town Court of the Moscow Region, Moscow Regional Court<\/p>\n

06\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – train\/van, 11\/06\/2020 to 06\/08\/2021, 0.25\u00a0sq. m of personal space, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen;<\/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
8.<\/td>\n52595\/21<\/p>\n

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

Gennadiy Nikolayevich ZVEREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nDivnogorsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n52604\/21<\/p>\n

24\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Vyacheslav Borisovich PODKORYTOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nUkhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Justice of the Peace of the Timanskiy Judicial Circuit of Ukhta, the Republic of Komi<\/p>\n

13\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n52865\/21<\/p>\n

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

Sergey Aleksandrovich GORYAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1988<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nLyambirskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordovia<\/p>\n

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

Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport \u2013 van, 31\/01\/2020-27\/08\/2021, transportation in a single-prisoner cubicle measuring 0.3 sq. m, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural and electric light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding<\/td>\n8,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n53106\/21<\/p>\n

27\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Valeryevich DAVYDOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n53108\/21<\/p>\n

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

Pavel Aleksandrovich SKOBELEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1991<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nMedvedevskiy District Court of the Republic of Mariy El, Supreme Court of the Republic of Mariy El<\/p>\n

21\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n53109\/21<\/p>\n

11\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Mstislav Mikhaylovich PETROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

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

02\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n53311\/21<\/p>\n

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

Valeriy Vakhtangovich KAN-SA-UNI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nKolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n55138\/21<\/p>\n

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

Mirza BOLKVADZE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Perevozchikov Andrey Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Yaroslavl<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n56037\/21<\/p>\n

15\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Mikhail Nikolayevich TERESHCHENKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St\u00a0Petersburg City Court<\/p>\n

09\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Art. 5 (3) – excessive length of pre-trial detention \u2013 detention since March 2021 and ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the 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 assess the applicant\u2019s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – The appeal of 19\/04\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18\/05\/2021; the appeal of 21\/05\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 22\/06\/2021; the appeal of 26\/06\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 18\/08\/2021; the appeal of 20\/08\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 20\/09\/2021; the appeal of 09\/10\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 09\/11\/2021; the appeal of 24\/09\/2021 against the detention order was examined on 11\/11\/2021.<\/td>\n

9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n56111\/21<\/p>\n

19\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Maksim Vyacheslavovich MANAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk<\/p>\n

09\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n56726\/21<\/p>\n

15\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Andrey Aleksandrovich MELNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n56810\/21<\/p>\n

27\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1981<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n58290\/21<\/p>\n

21\/11\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksey Gennadyevich BRECHKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

Nazarov Ilya Yuryevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

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

21\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n58392\/21<\/p>\n

05\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Rasul ISKANDARZOD<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n58405\/21<\/p>\n

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

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

1993<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n6147\/22<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Vladimirovich BORODKIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n6766\/22<\/p>\n

25\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Yuriy Nikolayevich UGRYUMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n6770\/22<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

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

1988<\/td>\n

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

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n6933\/22<\/p>\n

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

Aleksandr Vadimovich SIVKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

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

17\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n6945\/22<\/p>\n

31\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Vyacheslav Grigoryevich IGOSHIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

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

23\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n7478\/22<\/p>\n

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

Mikhail Yuryevich PERCHENYUK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nUkhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi, Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg<\/p>\n

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

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n9797\/22<\/p>\n

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

Vadim Nikolayevich BUTANAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

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

11\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n10542\/22<\/p>\n

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

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

1986<\/td>\n

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

19\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n39234\/22<\/p>\n

04\/07\/2022<\/td>\n

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

1980<\/td>\n

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

13\/04\/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