Communicated on 4 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 28304/10 Yevgeniy Viktorovich IVANOV against Russia lodged on 29 March 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Ivanov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Moscow . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. I. Trepashkin , a lawyer practising in Moscow .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 3 June 2009 the applicant, a former policeman, was arrested on suspicion of bribery and on 4 June 2009 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow issued a detention order.

The applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/9 in Moscow .

During the applicant ’ s detention he received several lawyer visits which were conducted in a special room within the prison. The room was equipped with a cage where the applicant was locked. The applicant submits that in response to his repeated objections the prison staff referred him to a decision by the prison governor.

On 12 November 2009 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of bribery, fined him 300,000 Russian roubles and immediately released him from the fine in view of the time spent in detention pending trial.

B . Relevant domestic law and practice

Safety equipment in prison visitation areas is governed by two regulations of the Ministry of Justice .

A ccording to § 145 of the Regulation of the Internal Order in Remand Facilities (Prisons) adopted by order no. 189 of 14 October 2005 , meetings with counsel are to be held in private and “without any partition”;

A ccording to § 60 (23) of the Instruction on the Technical Security Equipment of the Correctional System Facilities adopted by order no. 279 of 4 September 2006 quarters allotted for investigative acts shall have cage barriers allowing to isolate the interrogatee from the rest of the room.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that his caging during lawyer visits in Moscow remand prison IZ-77/9 was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention against his caging during lawyer visits in Remand Prison IZ-77/9 in Moscow ?

2. If he did, has he exhausted it?

3 . Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in that the applicant was caged during the lawyer ’ s visits (see, mutatis mutandis , Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 129, 136, 138, 17 July 2014 ) ?