THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36198/16 Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV against Russia and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 December 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and other details of the present applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Other complaints raised by the applicants were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

It follows from the Government’s observations that the applicants had been confined before the court not in metal cages, but in glass cabins consisting of steel frames and sheets of bulletproof glass. The Court has previously held that the placement of defendants behind glass partitions or in glass cabins did not in itself involve an element of humiliation sufficient to reach the minimum level of severity, as was the case with metal cages. Such level could be attained, however, if the circumstances of their confinement, taken as a whole, would cause them distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 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, §§ 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).

The Court observes that in the present cases the applicants did not put forward any particular circumstances of their confinement inside the glass cabins which would allow the Court to establish whether the conditions in the courtrooms attained the minimum level of severity and amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The applicants also raised complaints under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention about the impact of their confinement in glass cabins on the fairness of the proceedings against them and under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about their detention in the absence of “relevant and sufficient” reasons. Applicants in applications nos. 40617/16 and 42050/16 further complained under Article 13 in connection with their complaints under Articles 3 and 6 § 3 (c).

The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 12 January 2023.

{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

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

36198/16

08/06/2016

Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV

1968Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

Taganrog Town Court of

the Rostov Region

27/07/2016

40617/16

23/06/2016

Artem Aleksandrovich KORYUNOV

1990Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

Kirovskiy District Court of

Rostov-on-Don

13/05/2016

42050/16

12/07/2016

Roman Nikolayevich MAKAROV

1973Reyzvig

Arnold Anatolyevich

Taganrog

Taganrog Town Court of

the Rostov Region

18/08/2016