BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just ÂŁ5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> YEFIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 19775/18 (Judgment : Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : Third Section Committee) [2022] ECHR 963 (10 November 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/963.html
Cite as: [2022] ECHR 963, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD001977518, CE:ECHR:2022:1110JUD001977518

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]


 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF YEFIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 19775/18 and 3 others –
see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 November 2022

 

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


In the case of Yefimov 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 20 October 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.

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.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION


6.  The applicants complained 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.”


7.  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, 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.


8.  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.


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

III.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION


10.  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.”


11.  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.


12.  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.      Declares the applications admissible;

3.      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;

4.      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 10 November 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)

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

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

(in euros) [1]

 

19775/18

09/04/2018

Aleksandr Yevgenyevich YEFIMOV

1958

Kuzminykh Konstantin Sergeyevich

St Petersburg

Vsevolzhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region

09/03/2018

7,500

 

20509/18

03/04/2018

Asgat Khasanovich KHAFIZOV

1985

Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich

Kazan

Kazan City Garrison Court

08/12/2017

7,500

 

23182/18

03/05/2018

Nikolay Nikolayevich BORISENKO

1973

 

 

Zabaykalskiy Regional Court

21/02/2018

5,000

 

23267/18

04/05/2018

Lyubov Vitalyevna MALOFEYEVA

1987

 

Fedor Aleksandrovich DARYENKO

1980

 

 

 

Smolensk Regional Court

01/12/2017

7,500

 

 



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


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2022/963.html