THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 47557/12 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 November 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mikhaylov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli , President,

Andreas Zünd ,

Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,

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 given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court 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.”

7. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in metal cages before the court 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. 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, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018).

8. 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 metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

10. The applicants further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in relation to their placement in a metal cage before a court.

11. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

12. 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.”

13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (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’ claims for just satisfaction.

14. The Court further 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,

(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 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli

Acting Deputy 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’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Name of the court

Date of the relevant judgment

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

47557/12

18/06/2012

Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV

1989Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna

Moscow

The Supreme Court of Russia

09/04/2012

7,500

-

8229/15

26/01/2015

Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV

1966Zykov Andrey Leonidovich

Khabarovsk

Khabarovsk Regional Court

01/08/2014

7,500

950

55766/15

02/11/2015

Ilnar Klimovich GILYAZETDINOV

1976Khammatova Darya Mikhaylovna

Kazan

Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

19/05/2015

7,500

1,000

5440/16

14/01/2016

Khalid Adamovich AZMATGIRIYEV

1983Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

Moscow City Court

13/08/2015

7,500

-

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.