European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF TEPLYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 31708/16 and 6 others –
see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

 

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

In the case of Teplyakov and Others v. Russia,

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

          Darian Pavli, President,

          Andreas Zünd,

          Frédéric Krenc, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 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.     as to locus standi of mr VITALIY sergeyev (application no. 16110/18)

6.  The Court notes that Mr Sergey Vitalyevich Sergeyev (application no. 16110/18) died and that his father and heir, Mr Vitaliy Semenovich Sergeyev, asked the Court to continue the examination of the application in his stead. The Court considers Mr Vitaliy Sergeyev’s statement and, in line with its case-law (see Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25‑27, 17 May 2005), accepts that he has standing to pursue the proceedings instituted by the applicant in application no. 16110/18. However, for the sake of clarity and other practical considerations, the Court will continue referring to Mr Sergey Vitalyevich Sergeyev as the applicant in the relevant parts of the present judgment (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 1, 26 April 2011).

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

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:

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 grievances 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.”

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, 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.

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

10.  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 (for similar approach see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

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

11.  In applications nos. 26262/18 and 54513/19, the 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, concerning conditions of detention during transport, and 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).

V.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  Mr Teplyakov (application no. 31708/16) also raised other complaints under the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the complaints 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 application no. 31708/16 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

14.  Mr Fidas (application 54513/19) raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention concerning his allocation to a remote colony.

15.  Having examined the complaint and the latest developments in the applicant’s case, including replacement of prison sentence with compulsory labour resulting in the applicant’s transfer to a correctional facility located in the vicinity of his family’s place of residence, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the complaint under Article 37  § 1 in fine.

Accordingly, this part of application no. 54513/19 should be struck out of the list.

VI.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

16.  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.”

17.  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.

18.  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.      Holds that Mr Vitaliy Semenovich Sergeyev has standing to pursue the proceedings initiated his late son, Mr Sergey Vitalyevich Sergeyev (application no. 16110/18);

3.      Decides to strike the complaint lodged by Mr Fidas under Article 8 of the Convention (application no. 54513/19) out of its list of cases;

4.      Declares the complaints 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, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal case in courtrooms, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 31708/16 as inadmissible;

5.      Holds that these applications 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 the 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 13 October 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)