Communicated on 18 March 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 52153/15 Dmitriy Viktorovich KLIMENKO against Russia lodged on 29 September 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Klimenko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently in detention. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Kiryanov , a lawyer practising in Taganrog, Rostov Region.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 5 February 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft.

On 7 February 2014 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-61/2 in Taganrog.

The custodial measure was subsequently extended by the Town Court on several occasions.

On 20 February 2015 the criminal case against the applicant was submitted to the Town Court for trial.

In the course of the hearing on 18 August 2015 the prosecutor asked the trial court to extend the custodial measure applied to the applicant. On the same day the Town Court extended the applicant ’ s detention until 20 November 2015.

In the courtroom where the applicant ’ s proceedings before the Town Court were being heard the applicant was confined to a metal cage. The layout of the cage rendered the applicant ’ s communication with his lawyer very difficult: they could not communicate orally without being heard and any exchange of documents between them was only possible after they had been presented to and read by the judge and the court ushers.

The applicant appealed against the decision of 18 August 2015 to the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). In his appeal the applicant complained, in particular, that his placement in the metal cage during proceedings before the Town Court had been humiliating and had rendered difficult his communication with the lawyer.

On 4 September 2015 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 18 August 2015 on appeal. The court held, in particular, that the issues arising out of the applicant ’ s circumstances in the courtroom did not affect the lawfulness of the applicant ’ s detention and fell outside the court ’ s scope of examination.

2. Medical assistance in remand prison

Upon his arrival in the remand prison on 7 February 2014 the applicant was examined by a paramedic. He made no health-related complaints.

On 10 February 2015 the applicant was again examined by the paramedic of the remand prison, who recommended that a copy of the applicants ’ pre ‑ detention medical file be obtained.

On 3 April 2015 the applicant complained of a headache. The paramedic examined the applicant, diagnosed him with vegeto -vascular dystonia of the hypertonic type and prescribed treatment. A consultation with a doctor was recommended.

On 14 April 2015 the applicant was examined by a doctor. He was diagnosed with second stage hypertension, of the second degree, of the fourth risk group and prescribed treatment.

On 6 May 2015 the applicant was examined by the doctor again. The prescribed treatment was maintained.

On 8 May 2015 the applicant ’ s pre-detention medical file was obtained.

On 7 October and 2 December 2015 the applicant was examined by a medical panel of the town emergency hospital, which confirmed the applicant ’ s diagnosis of hypertension.

On 3 December 2015 the applicant was transferred to a prison hospital for a review of his treatment plan.

3. Medical examination with a view to determining whether the applicant could be released from detention on health grounds

On 6 and 17 February 2014 the applicant ’ s lawyer requested the investigator to order a medical examination for the applicant with a view to determining whether the latter was fit for detention. The requests remained unexamined.

In May 2015 the applicant sent a similar request to the head of the remand prison. His request was supported by medical documents, confirming that he suffered from hypertension and the consequences of myocardial infarction. The request remained unexamined.

The applicant challenged the inaction of the head of the remand prison before a court.

On 16 July 2015 the Town Court found the inactivity of the head of the remand prison unlawful and obliged him to examine the applicant ’ s request. This decision became final on 21 August 2015.

On 7 October and 2 December 2015 the applicant was examined by the medical panel of the town emergency hospital, which established the absence of medical grounds which would allow the applicant ’ s release from detention.

4. The applicant ’ s confinement in the psychoneurological unit of the prison hospital

As mentioned above, on 3 December 2015 the applicant, together with his co-defendant R., was transferred to prison hospital for a review of his treatment plan.

Upon their arrival at the prison hospital, the applicant and R. were asked which of them had complained to the European Court. The applicant replied that it had been him, following which he was placed in the closed-off type of psychoneurological unit of the hospital so as “to think ahead before submitting any further complaints to the Court”. The applicant stayed there until 20 December 2015. His medical treatment in the above period was limited to fluorography and electrocardiogram tests.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice, relevant international materials and practice

For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice regarding the confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom before a trial court see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08 , § § 53-76 , ECHR 2014 (extracts).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom during proceedings before the Town Court was humiliating. He further complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), that his placement in the metal cage rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair as the security arrangement in question prevented his free and confidential communication with his lawyer.

The applicant further complains, under Article 34 of the Convention, that his placement in the psychoneurological unit of the prison hospital between 3 December and 20 December 2015 was in breach of his right to individual petition.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , cited above , §§ 113-39)?

The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cage used to confine the applicant in the courtroom concerned.

2. Did the applicant ’ s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention ? In particular, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to enjoy effective legal assistance in the courtroom, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant able to have confidential exchanges with his lawyer, both oral and written, during the hearing (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05 , §§ 642-48, 25 July 2013) ?

3. Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case to the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, what were the reasons for the applicant ’ s placement in the psychoneurological unit of the prison hospital between 3 December and 20 December 2015 ?