European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SOVETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 32992/13 and 12 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 September 2022

 

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

In the case of Sovetov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Andreas Zünd,
          Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,

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

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONs

A.    Application no. 7961/18

6.  As regards application no. 7961/18, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged that the applicant had been transported in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaints about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government offered to pay the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

7.  The applicant did not accept the Government’s proposal.

8.  The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

9.  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012).

10.  Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

11.  In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

12.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

13.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no. 7961/18 in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint.

B.    Applications nos. 13878/18, 30467/18 and 34229/18

14.  The Government submitted a unilateral declaration in applications nos. 13878/18, 30467/18 and 34229/18 which were not accepted by the applicants. The Court notes that the unilateral declarations did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike those applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the cases (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, § 75).

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION on account of confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom

15.  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:

Article 3

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

Some applicants also complained that 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:

“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.”

16.  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, no. 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.

17.  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.

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

19.  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 applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.

IV.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

20.  In applications nos. 32992/13, 70123/17, 30467/18, and 20666/19, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see 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 Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 87-89, ECHR 2006, concerning unrecorded detention; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, regarding length of pre-trial detention; Idalov, cited above, §§ 103-08, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, related to conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard, Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance).

V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21.  In applications nos. 32992/13, 6618/14, 15221/17, 70123/17, 80460/17, 13878/18, 30467/18, 34229/18 and 20666/19, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

22.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

23.  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.”

24.  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.

25.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike the part of application no. 7961/18 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, insofar as it relates to the conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy in this regard out of its list of cases;

3.      Rejects the respondent Government’s request to strike applications nos. 13878/18, 30467/18 and 34229/18 out of its list of cases;

4.      Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage during court hearing and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 32992/13, 6618/14, 15221/17, 70123/17, 80460/17, 13878/18, 30467/18, 34229/18 and 20666/19 as inadmissible;

5.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against them;

6.      Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

7.      Holds

(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 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli
    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(use of metal cages in courtrooms)