European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SAMUTICHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 7943/18 and 2 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 Samutichev 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. They 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 part of applications nos. 7943/18 and 22843/18

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations whereby they acknowledged, in respect of applications nos. 7943/18 and 22843/18, that the applicants had been transported in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government offered to pay each of the applicants 1,000 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amounts 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 these amounts within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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.  Mr Samutichev (application no. 7943/18) accepted the Government’s proposal. Mr Turkin (application no. 22843/18) rejected it.

A.    Application no. 7943/18

8.  In the light of Mr Samutichev’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the parties may be considered to have reached a friendly settlement.

9.  The Court takes note of the friendly settlement agreement. It is satisfied that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of application no. 7943/18 in that part.

10.  It is hence appropriate to strike the case out of the Court’s list in the part covered by the friendly settlement.

B.    Application no. 22843/18

11.  As regards application no. 22843/18, 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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

12.  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).

13. 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)).

14.  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 application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

15.   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).

16.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no. 22843/18 in the part covered by the unilateral declaration of the Government.

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

17.  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.”

18.  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.

19.  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.

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

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21.  Mr Dindarov (application no. 28931/18) also raised other complaints under Article 8 of the Convention.

22.  The Court has examined the application 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.     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 declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike out of its list of cases the part of application no. 7943/18 in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention and the part of application no. 22843/18 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, insofar as they relate to the conditions of detention during transport and the absence of an effective remedy in this regard;

3.      Declares the complaints concerning the use of metal cages in courtrooms, admissible and the remainder of application no. 28931/18 inadmissible;

4.      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;

5.      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)