Search
document

MOROZOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

Doc ref: 2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 40436/18, 44... • ECHR ID: 001-201489

Document date: January 30, 2020

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 32

MOROZOV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

Doc ref: 2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 40436/18, 44... • ECHR ID: 001-201489

Document date: January 30, 2020

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 30 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2634/17 Ivan Aleksandrovich MOROZOV against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The cases concern the application of handcuffs to prisoners in prisons and during their transfers. The applicants were convicted of different crimes. Some of the applicants serve their sentences in special prisons for lifers and they have to wear handcuffs every time they leave their cells allegedly without any legal ground (see Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20 January 2011, and Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151 63, 15 May 2012).

The applicants also complain about poor conditions of detention and transport (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019), forced shaving (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts)), video surveillance in cells (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia , no s. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58 ‑ 100, 2 July 2019), segregation on account of the life prisoner status (see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 6 1199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), detention in a cage at court hearings (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 77-139, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and lack of effective remedies to protect their rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Questions on prison regime:

(a) Did the application of handcuffs to applicants (in all cases), using dogs to guard the applicants during their tr ansportation (applications nos. 6725/18, 15031/18, 34068/19), separation of the life convicts from other prison population and their solitary confinement or placement in a cell holding no more than two persons (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18), fo rced shaving (applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15294/18, 21401/18, 44351/18), constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria , no. 39084/97, §§ 99-122, ECHR 2003 XII (extracts); Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39-40, 20 January 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 179-214, ECHR 2014 (extracts))? What were the reasons and legal grounds for applying the above measures to the applicants? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to application of these measures.

What were the legal grounds for attaching the applicants to a wire rope together with several other prisoners during their transfer (applications nos. 34068/19 and 38336/19)?

In case of life prisoners, did the above measures apply automatically to all life prisoners?

( b ) As regards the applications nos. 78210/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, 34068/19, and 38336/19, did the applicants have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to provide examples of domestic case-law relating to the above measures in respect of life prisoners to illustrate the practical effectiveness of the existing remedies, if any.

2. Conditions of detention and transport and detention in cage:

(a) As regards the applications nos. 2634/17, 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 6725/18, 15031/18, 15294/18, 21401/18, 29086/18, 44351/18, 15943/19, 30453/19, and 38336/19, were the conditions of the applicants ’ detention and transport compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 120-66, 10 January 2012; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08 , §§ 46-58, 28 November 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia , no. 31535/09 , §§ 64-81, 92-98, 6 March 2014; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019) ?

(b) As regards the applications nos. 71295/17, 78210/17, 79064/17, 15031/18, 15294/18, and 38336/19, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the complaint about conditions of detention under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others , cited above, §§ 93-119, and Sergey Babushkin , cited above, §§ 36-45)?

(c) As regards the applications nos. 2634/17 and 15943/19, were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?

3. Video surveillance in prison:

As regards the applications nos. 2634/17 and 15294/18, were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance during their detention in prisons? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019)? In particular:

Was the interference “prescribed by law”?

If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? In particular, could those aims have been achieved by using less intrusive means?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of Birth

Place of Residence

Nationality

2634/17

Morozov

v. Russia

13/12/2016

Ivan Aleksandrovich MOROZOV

27/02/1984

Kharp

Russian

71295/17

Chudinov

v. Russia

04/09/2017

Eduard Vladimirovich CHUDINOV

31/01/1969

Elban

Russian

78210/17

Kalinin

v. Russia

10/10/2017

Roman Sergeyevich KALININ

05/07/1984

Chita

Russian

79064/17

Ibragimov

v. Russia

08/11/2017

Umrbek Durdiyevich IBRAGIMOV

08/05/1992

Elban

Ouzbekistan

6725/18

Ivanov

v. Russia

09/01/2018

Aleksey Yevgenyevich IVANOV

04/03/1976

Elban

Russian

15031/18

Resin

v. Russia

09/03/2018

Andrey Igorevich RESIN

29/07/1974

Khabarovsk

Russian

15294/18

Tikhomirov

v. Russia

03/03/2018

Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV

26/07/1986

Elban

Russian

21401/18

Shatalov

v. Russia

09/04/2018

Aleksey Sergeyevich SHATALOV

18/03/1983

Elban

Russian

29086/18

Semin

v. Russia

06/06/2018

Dmitriy Borisovich SEMIN

27/11/1970

Elban

Russian

40436/18

Kuchmenov

v. Russia

06/08/2018

Aslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV

19/02/1980

Elban

Russian

44351/18

Rudykh and Semin

v. Russia

30/08/2018

Vladimir Anatolyevich RUDYKH

01/10/1970

Elban

Russian

Dmitriy Borisovich SEMIN

27/11/1970

Elban

Russian

15943/19

Shakhnova

v. Russia

21/02/2019

Yuliya Gennadyevna SHAKHNOVA

11/07/1972

Moscow

Russian

30453/19

Shashkov

v. Russia

07/05/2019

Roman Mikhaylovich SHASHKOV

26/07/1963

Solikamsk

Russian

34068/19

Skibenko

v. Russia

17/06/2019

Aleksey Gennadyevich SKIBENKO

23/04/1978

Aleksandriyskaya

Russian

38336/19

Lunev

v. Russia

02/07/2019

Vladislav Vitalyevich LUNEV

26/08/1981

Stavropol

Russian

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant