The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and\/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them.<\/p>\n
European Court of Human Rights This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Burkov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Peeter Roosma, President, Having deliberated in private on 23 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. In application no. 35275\/19 the Ukrainian Government exercised their right to intervene under Article 36 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of the Court and submitted written comments, supporting the applicant\u2019s claims.<\/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 did not have 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov\u00a0and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9\u00a0April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0108-11, 27\u00a0November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0145-53, and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a085-90, 14\u00a0June 2016, concerning the impact of the applicants\u2019 confinement in a metal cage or a glass cabin on the exercise of their rights to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance; Schatschaschwili v. Germany\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a09154\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0100-31, ECHR 2015, and Murtazaliyeva\u00a0v. Russia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a036658\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0150-59, 18\u00a0December 2018, relating to impossibility to question witnesses in a criminal trial; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057\/06 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a058-110, 2\u00a0July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and lack of an effective remedy in that respect (see appended table).<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. In application no.\u00a05903\/15 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 2 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 16. 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 matter complained of is 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 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019\u00a0claims for just satisfaction in applications nos. 5903\/15 and 35275\/19.<\/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 Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages and\/or glass cabins in courtrooms and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, 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.\u00a05903\/15 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 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<\/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 8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction in applications nos.\u00a05903\/15 and 35275\/19.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 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 Peeter Roosma __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nTHIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF BURKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 13567\/13 and 41 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2023<\/p>\n
\nIoannis Ktistakis,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\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