LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF SHULMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 15918/13;51623/15;53700/15;18524/16;33214/17;34421/17;35675/17;36267/17 • ECHR ID: 001-184669
Document date: July 17, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
CASE OF SHULMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 15918/13;51623/15;53700/15;18524/16;33214/17;34421/17;35675/17;36267/17 • ECHR ID: 001-184669
Document date: July 17, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SHULMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
( Application no. 15918/13 and 7 others - see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 July 2018
FINAL
03/12/2018
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Shulmin and Others v. Russia ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting as a C hamber composed of:
Helena Jäderblom , President, Branko Lubarda , Helen Keller, Dmitry Dedov, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Georgios A. Serghides, Jolien Schukking, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 26 June 2018 ,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr M. Galperin , the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applications were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them .
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in metal cages in the courtrooms in the context of their trials. 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, no. 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 3 of the Convention.
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 ’ confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
III . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and in the absence of any information from the Government about specific circumstances of the cases, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
13. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them ;
4. Holds
(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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 July 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stephen Phillips Helena Jäderblom
Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
( use of metal cages in courtrooms )
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment
Amoun t awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
15918/13
21/01/2013
Oleg Nikolayevich Shulmin
11/10/1961
Novomoskovsk District Court of the Tula Region
14/12/2012
7,500
51623/15
08/10/2015
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Krasnov
08/02/1984
Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna
Saransk
Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia
20/08/2015
7,500
53700/15
08/10/2015
Stanislav Igorevich Novikov
02/04/1991
Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna
Saransk
Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia
20/08/2015
7,500
18524/16
28/03/2016
Yuriy Viktorovich Sofronov
31/08/1984
Suvorov Vladislav Vadimovich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
25/11/2015
7,500
33214/17
08/04/2017
Denis Viktorovich Alekseyev
11/06/1994
Nagabaysk District Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
30/08/2016
7,500
34421/17
07/04/2017
Timur Shodiyerovich Aldergott
28/04/1988
Kalininsky District Court of Tyumen
21/11/2016
7,500
35675/17
Aleksey Gennadiyevich Kaplin
02/02/1988
Khanty- Mansiyskiy District Court of the Khanty- Mansiysk Region
10/03/2017
7,500
36267/17
Marina Konstantinovna Pyshnogray
29/04/1982
Khanty- Mansiyskiy District Court of the Khanty- Mansiysk Region
10/03/2017
7,500
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
