SECOND SECTION

CASE OF PANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 14228/18 and 37 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 November 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Panin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Lorraine Schembri Orland , President , Frédéric Krenc, Davor Derenčinović , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023).

7. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.

9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

11. Having regard to the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

12. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of transport of detainees and the lack of a speedy review of detention matters; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, regarding the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Butkevich v. Russia , no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, concerning the authorities’ failure to secure an immediate release of a detainee; Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards excessive length of pre-trial detention; Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Pal v. the United Kingdom , no. 44261/19, §§ 39-63, 30 November 2021, related to criminal arrest and prosecution in breach of Article 10 of the Convention).

13. Having examined all the material before it, and given the findings in paragraphs 10 and 12 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately additional complaints raised under Article 5 of the Convention by Mr Kurmoyarov, the applicant in application no. 56493/22 (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia , no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements 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

Relevant period

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

14228/18

06/03/2018

Denis Vladimirovich PANIN

1978Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Video link from SIZO-5, Kashira

26/10/2017

7,500

21314/18

16/04/2018

Ivan Aleksandrovich FEDORYAK

1989Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna

Rostov-on-Don

Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don

26/12/2017

7,500

37081/18

23/07/2018

Yevgeniy Leonidovich PAYUSOV

1978Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk

24/01/2018;

Arkhangelsk Regional Court

27/03/2018

7,500

46898/18

17/09/2018

Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV

1978Vologda Town Court, Vologda Regional Court

26/03/2018

7,500

53355/18

29/10/2018

Aleksandr Nikolayevich ZAVYALOV

1983Chistopol Town Court

04/05/2018

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - on 18/07/2018: van, lack of fresh air, overcrowding - transported with 20 inmates; the transfer lasted three hours;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction – IK ‑ 11 Nizhniy Novgorod Region, since 01/09/2018 – ongoing on the date of lodging the application with the Court, 1.8. sq. m of personal space, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to toilet;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention

16,300

53394/18

26/10/2018

Igor Vladimirovich USHAKOV

1982Ramenskoye Town Court

05/05/2018

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport –

(1) from 20/04/2017 to 05/05/2018; more than 20 transfers, van, convoy cells; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, restricted access to toilet, insufficient quantity of food, inadequate temperature; the applicant was placed in a single compartment measuring 0.3 sq. m., on certain occasions another inmate was placed in the same compartment with the applicant; transfers lasted 6 hours;

(2) from 05/05/2018 to 03/09/2018 by train from the pre-trial detention facility to the colony via numerous transit facilities: overcrowdin), insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, poor quality of food, lack of privacy for toilet, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, no or restricted access to warm water, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

9,750

59246/18

26/11/2018

Viktor Igorevich ABRAMOV

1990Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

16/07/2018

7,500

59610/18

26/11/2018

Azamat Vagizovich MIRKHAYDAROV

1971Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich

Tyumen

Verkhneuslonskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

18/07/2018

7,500

59865/18

26/11/2018

Denis Igorevich KAZANOVSKIY

1996Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich

Tyumen

Surgut Town Court

28/05/2018

7,500

269/19

20/04/2019

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KRAVCHENKO

1978Pskov Regional Court

09/01/2019

7,500

1475/19

20/12/2018

Sergey Sergeyevich BORISIKHIN

1974Petrov Roman Nikolayevich

Cheboksary

Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan, numerous hearings with the most recent on the date of conviction:

29/06/2018

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by van, on 20/09/2018 to 13/10/2018, 0.2 ‑ 0.5 sq. m per inmate, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to potable water, lack or insufficient quantity of food

8,500

1494/19

07/12/2018

Ramil Failevich KALIYEV

1980Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen

03/09/2018

7,500

2124/19

01/12/2018

Dmitriy Andreyevich KUZNETSOV

2000Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad

06/07/2018

7,500

2253/19

17/12/2018

Aleksey Vyacheslavovich NOSKOV

1994Belovo Town Court of Kemerovo Region

16/08/2018

7,500

4039/19

04/01/2019

Ilgar Elshan ogly GUSEYNOV

1987Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich

Tyumen

Moscow District Court of Kaliningrad

20/11/2018

7,500

6727/19

08/01/2019

Vitaliy Aleksandrovich PRISHIBSKIY

1991Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk, Orenburg Regional Court

via video link from SIZO-2, Orsk

09/07/2018

7,500

11677/19

06/02/2019

Denis Yuryevich VYSOTSKIY

1989Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich

Taganrog

Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region

08/05/2019

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 25/11/2018 to 25/05/2019 based exclusively on the gravity of the charges (drug dealing); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;

Art. 8 (1) - secret surveillance phone tapping pursuant to the order of the Taganrog Town Court of 17/09/2018. Specific defects: the courts did not verify the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” and did not apply the “necessity in a democratic society test”. The applicant learnt about phone tapping on 18/01/2019 at the latest. He was allowed to study the relevant documents in July 2019.

9,750

13173/19

17/02/2019

Liliya Aleksandrovna MARINICHEVA

1970Zhuravlev Stanislav Igorevich

Moscow

Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court

03/12/2020

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, van; from 04/06/2014 to 04/09/2018, 0.2 sq. m per inmate; overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature;

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - 4 days of unlawful detention. On 03/12/2020 the Samara Regional Court reviewed the applicant’s sentence on appeal and ruled for release of the applicant. The applicant was released only on 07/12/2020 due to administrative formalities (she was participating in the appeal hearing via video link, prison administration waited for a certified copy of the decision; the distance between the court and the facility is around 200 km)

9,750

14055/19

20/12/2018

Igor Gennadyevich CHEPCHIN

1980Belinskaya Marina Aleksandrovna

St Petersburg

Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg; Leningrad Regional Court

10/07/2018

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, from 17/12/2015 to 10/07/2018,

0.4 sq. m. per inmate, inadequate temperature, lack of seat belts, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, no food. The transfers lasted up to 8 hours;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

8,500

17426/19

13/03/2019

Sergey Aysarovich KONOVALOV

1984Nizhnekamsk Town Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

15/10/2018

7,500

19319/19

27/03/2019

Vyacheslav Vladimirovich STETSIK

1995Sukhobuzimskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region

09/11/2018

7,500

32916/19

13/06/2019

Boris Muzarachevich KALMYKOV

1960Goncharenko Natalya Germanovna

Chita

Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

11/01/2019

7,500

34376/19

06/06/2019

Dmitriy Valentinovich MIKHAYLOV

1990Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk

24/10/2018

7,500

34586/19

19/06/2019

Dinar Fanitovich SADIROV

1993Verkhniy Uslon District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan

21/12/2018

7,500

46611/20

30/09/2020

Pavel Andreyevich MELNIKOV

1994Sommer Ulrich

Köln

Syktyvdvinskiy District Court; Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

01/06/2020

Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Syktyvkar Komi Republic, 08/11/2018 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged; detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room;

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by train on 07/06/2020 and 12/07/2020 - overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, transport for more than 24 hours.

8,500

46237/21

30/08/2021

Maksim Vladimirovich SHLEGEL

1977Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol, Stavropol Regional Court (via videoconference), 21/06/2021

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - in vans from 29/03/2021 to 04/06/2021, overcrowding, 0.3 sq. m. of personal space, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet; the journeys lasted approximately 3 to 6 hours

8,500

46509/21

22/08/2021

Nikolay Valentinovich KONDRATYUK

1978Onezhsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region, Arkhangelsk Regional Court, Justice of the Peace no. 2 of Onezhskiy Judicial District of Arkhangelsk Region

29/10/2021

7,500

47606/21

07/09/2021

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich FINOGENOV

1969Khabarovsk Regional Court

18/03/2021

Sol-Iletskiy District Court of Orenburg Region

25/03/2021

7,500

57503/21

02/11/2021

Dmitriy Vasilyevich NOSKOV

1977Noskova Tatyana Valeryevna

Irkutsk

Kirovskiy District Court;

Video link from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region

Irkutsk Garrison Military Court

Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk

28/12/2021

Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of the applicant’s transport by van from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region to the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk in a single-prisoner cubicle on numerous occasions in the period from 23/01/2020 to 26/10/2021, lack of fresh air, 0.5 sq. m. of personal space, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient natural light;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 12/12/2019-21/10/2021, Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court, fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial;

Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region; 13/12/2019 – ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court; detention in different cells with video surveillance.

9,750

60247/21

23/11/2021

Eduard Anatolyevich SMOLNIKOV

1966Syktyvkar District Court, Supreme Court of Komi Republic

From 23/04/2021 to 11/11/2021

7,500

3038/22

08/12/2021

Maksim Aleksandrovich VASILYEV

1982Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg (in the courthouse); St Petersburg City Court (video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg)

From 04/06/2021 to 09/02/2022

7,500

3347/22

23/12/2021

Aleksandr Serafimovich KIRSEYEV

1954Second Court of Appeal (video link from SIZO-1, Komi Republic)

01/09/2021

7,500

4451/22

16/12/2021

Makar Maksimovich RUFOV

2000Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic

13/07/2021

Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Komi Republic, 16/02/2020 - 15/11/2021, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators;

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities

7,500

5773/22

01/12/2021

Oleg Mikhaylovich KOROLEV

1979Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk;

Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (video-link from SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region), from 30/06/2021 to 20/07/2021

7,500

6177/22

23/03/2022

Nikolay Vasilyevich TARATYNKO

1989Ezhvinskiy District Court of the Komi Republic

01/12/2021;

Katayevskiy District Court of the Komi Republic

18/03/2022

7,500

18565/22

14/03/2022

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich VASILYEV

1976Justice of the Peace of Judicial Circuit no. 141 of the Nizhneingashskiy District of the Krasnoyarsk Region

from 15/03/2019 to 25/02/2022

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport

transport on numerous occasions to the court hearings and for studying his casefile in the period from 25/01/2017 to 25/02/2022 in a single-prisoner cubicle (“stakan”), duration of transport of about 2.5 to 5 hours on each occasion, applicant transported on numerous occasions, no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food, insufficient personal space.

8,500

33410/22

17/06/2022

Vyacheslav Iosifovich CHIZHINOK

1982Supreme Court of Komi Republic

24/12/2021

7,500

56493/22

18/11/2022

Ioann Valeryevich KURMOYAROV

1968Krikun Leonid Leonidovich

St Petersburg

St Petersburg City Court

Video link from SIZO-1, St Petersburg, from 20/07/2022 to 16/09/2022

Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression – arrest and criminal prosecution under Article 207.3 § 2 - d ("д") for publishing anti-war video recordings in social network Vkontakte between 06/03/2022 and 05/04/2022;

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the St Petersburg City Court reviewed the detention orders of the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 28/07/2022 on 31/08/2022;

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - pre-trial detention on the charges of spreading intentionally “fake” news about the Russian armed forced is pending as of 16/09/2022 (since 08/06/2022); detention orders issued by the Kalininskiy District Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court. Specific defects: use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint

9,750

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.