Communicated on 24 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 73011/14 Andrey Nyaimovich SYAFUKOV against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended)

The applicants are Russian nationals. They complain, in particular, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention about the impact their confinement in metal cages or protective glass cabins before the courts during the criminal proceedings against them had on the fairness of those proceedings, namely, their right to participate effectively in the proceedings and to receive practical and effective legal assistance. The applicants outline the following issues: (a) absence of a desk or another flat surface for reading documents or taking notes, (b) poor audibility inside glass cabins, (c) impossibility to have confidential exchange with counsel (convoy officers and bailiffs within earshot throughout the trial and during court breaks). The applicants raised the above issues before appellate courts, but to no avail. The individual circumstances and complaints of each applicant are summarised in the appendix below.

The applicants in applications nos. 5903/15, 67503/17 and 35275/19 also raised other complaints, subject of well-established case-law of the Court, which are summarised in the appendix below.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to each applicant ’ s specific allegations, did he have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and/or (c) of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Taking into account the conditions in which each of the applicants was held during the trial (metal cage or glass cabin):

( i ) Was he afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence , as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Was he provided with sufficient space? Was he provided with a desk or equivalent facilities to peruse documents and to take notes (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 151-53, 4 October 2016)?

(ii) Was the applicant able to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Did the acoustics inside the glass cabin allow the applicant to follow the course of the trial and participate effectively in the proceedings? What were the arrangements for the applicant ’ s consultations with counsel? Was the applicant able to confer privately with counsel during the trial (see Yaroslav Belousov , cited above, §§ 151-53, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 642-48, 25 July 2013)?

(b) In the cases of Mr Syafukov and Mr Makovchuk , were the applicants afforded an opportunity to confer privately with their counsel in the remand prison during the preparation of the trial? What were the arrangements for the applicants ’ consultations with their counsel at the remand prison?

(c) In Mr Suldin ’ s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to study the case file at the stage of the preparation of his appeal?

(d) In Mr Boychenko ’ s case, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to confer privately with his lawyer before the appeal hearing of his criminal case?

2. The Government may, if they so wish, submit comments on the other complaints raised by the applicants which are the subject of the Court ’ s well-established case-law.

APPENDIX

No.

Application No.

Applicant name,

date of birth,

place of residence

Date of introduction

Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins

before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial

under Article 6 of the Convention

Other complaints under

the well-established case-law

73011/14

Andrey

Nyaimovich

SYAFUKOV

06/05/1977

Saransk

07/11/2014

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)

(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)

74193/14

Vyacheslav Vladimirovich MAKOVCHUK

15/09/1975

Uyar

05/11/2014

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the preparation for the trial in SIZO and during the trial in the courthouse (presence of convoy and bailiffs beside the metal cage where the applicant was held, lack of possibility to have any confidential exchange either in the course of the trial or during court breaks, microphones installed above the table of the counsel, which remained “on” during court breaks)

(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya of 14/01/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 04/09/14)

5903/15

Dmitriy

Alekseyevich CHEBOTAREV

28/01/1984

Kopeysk

09/12/2014

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage

(judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi of 23/06/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 10/07/15)

Articles 3, 6 § 2: holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial

7265/16

Sergey

Nikolayevich

TOROPOV

14/03/1955

Kokhma

17/12/2015

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c): the glass cabin where the applicant was confined throughout the trial muffled the sound of the words spoken in the courtroom and prevented the applicant, suffering from chronic hearing impairment, from effectively participating in the proceedings

(judgment of the Ivanovo Regional Court of 21/10/14, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 19/05/15, copy of the appeal decision received by the applicant on 14/07/15 , court stamp)

No.

Application No.

Applicant name,

date of birth,

place of residence

Date of introduction

Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins

before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial

under Article 6 of the Convention

Other complaints under

the well-established case-law

67503/17

Islam

Saydaliyevich TASHUYEV

07/08/1985

Zelenyy

04/09/2017

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b): lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes during the trial due to the interior arrangement of the metal cage

(judgment of the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow of 02/12/16, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 06/03/17)

Articles 3 and 13: conditions of detention in remand prison SIZO-5 in Moscow (28/06/16 – 25/03/17, 1,6 m ² per inmate, lack of sleeping places, poor sanitary conditions, poor ventilation, poor heating and cooling systems)

Articles 3 and 13 : conditions of transport between SIZO-5 and correctional colony IK-8 in the Tambov Region (railway, 25 March 2017)

48780/18

Oleg

Gennadyevich ANTONOV

17/08/1971

Moscow

29/09/2018

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin

(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)

28069/19

Vladimir

Aleksandrovich

SULDIN

11/10/1976

Simferopol

14/05/2019

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin; denial of the right to study the case file for the preparation of the appeal

(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/2018)

No.

Application No.

Applicant name,

date of birth,

place of residence

Date of introduction

Confinement in metal cages and glass cabins

before the courts and the guarantee of a fair trial

under Article 6 of the Convention

Other complaints under

the well-established case-law

32506/19

Vitaliy

Afanasyevich

KUTSAR

10/06/1974

Moscow

14/05/2019

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of the glass cabin , poor audibility inside the cabin

(judgment of the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow of 07/09/2018, upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 4/12/18)

35275/19

Vitaliy

Olegovich BOYCHENKO

03/06/1993

Kherson

03/06/2019

Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) : lack of possibility to confer privately with counsel during the trial, lack of possibility to peruse documents and to take notes due to the interior arrangement of and the scarce space inside the metal cage (5 co-defendants held in the cage measuring 1,05 m ² ), lack of possibility to have confidential exchange with counsel at the appeal stage

(judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan of 13/11/18, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan on 30/04/19)

Article 3: conditions of transport between the remand prison SIZO-1 of the Republic of Tatarstan and the courthouse (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)

Article 3 : conditions of confinement at the convoy premises of the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)

Articles 3 : holding the applicant in a metal cage during the trial and preparation of the appeal (multiple occasions between 14/05/18 and 13/03/19)