Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF LEBED AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 5136/19 and 46 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 January 2024

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

In the case of Lebed and Others v. Russia,

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

Branko Lubarda , President , Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 30 November 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 (â€œthe Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€) 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, Â§Â§ 68 â€‘ 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:

â€œNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.â€

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

â€œEveryone 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.â€

8. The Court notes that the applicants were kept 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 applicantsâ€™ 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. In view of the above findings under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicantsâ€™ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, Â§ 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 â€‘ founded within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, Â§Â§ 103 â€‘ 08, 22 May 2012; and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, Â§Â§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, Dirdizov v. Russia , no. 41461/10, Â§Â§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Idalov , cited above, Â§Â§ 154-58, concerning lengthy review of detention; and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, Â§Â§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).

13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case â€‘ 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 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda

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

Applicantâ€™s name

Year of birth

Representativeâ€™s name and location

Name of the court

Date of the relevant judgment

Other complaints under well-established case â€‘ law

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

(in euros) [1]

5136/19

24/12/2018

Denis Alekseyevich LEBED

1987

Vtorushin Nikolay Aleksandrovich

Tyumen

Surgut District Court of Khanty-Mansy Region

14/08/2018

7,500

5210/19

18/12/2018

Mikhail Sergeyevich LATYSH

1985

Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk; numerous hearings, proceedings were pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court

7,500

5345/19

18/12/2018

Nikita Vasilyevich RUSOV

1993

Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk and Krasnoyarsk Regional Court from 14/09/2017 to 28/06/2018, and during the familiarising with his casefile in the courtroom of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on numerous occasions from 02/07/2018 to 28/01/2019

7,500

5354/19

17/01/2019

Yelena Vyacheslavovna MAKSIMOVA

1972

Sernovets Mariya Nikolayevna

Moscow

Moscow City Court

Video link from IZ-6, Moscow

09/04/2018

Skopinskiy District Court of the Ryazan Region