I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in LYUFI v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-12-15
- Communication date: 2017-09-08
- Application number(s): 23540/15
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1-c, 5-3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention
Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.726968
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Konstantin Yanovich Lyufi, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Nizhniy Tagil.
He is represented before the Court by Mr V.V.
Levenok, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 December 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
The applicant was transferred to a correctional colony to serve his sentence.
On 9 July 2013 unrelated criminal proceedings were instituted against an unidentified person on suspicion of fraud committed in 2009.
The applicant was questioned as a suspect.
On 2 August 2013 the chief investigator of the Department of the Interior of the Prikubanskiy District of Krasnodar decided to require him to give an undertaking not to leave his city of residence.
On 9 October 2013 the applicant was transferred from the correctional colony where he was serving his sentence to remand prison IZ-23/1 in Krasnodar to take part in investigative actions.
The remand prison was overcrowded and inmates had to take turns to sleep.
The physical and sanitary conditions in the cells were poor, as was the quality of the food served to inmates.
The applicant referred specifically to cells 141 and 142, where he was detained between 10 October 2013 and 11 June 2014 and 17 January and 20 March 2015, respectively.
On 21 November 2013 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”) decided to remand the applicant in custody for two months to 21 January 2014.
The District Court held that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might resume his criminal activities, obstruct the establishment of the truth, interfere with witnesses or escape if he was not detained.
In particular, the District Court took into consideration the fact that, in accordance with Article 79 of the Criminal Code, the applicant might take advantage of conditional early release.
On 29 November 2013 charges of fraud were brought against the applicant.
On 2 December 2013 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 21 November 2013 on appeal.
On 31 December 2013 the prosecutor approved a bill of indictment and the case was sent to the District Court for trial.
On 20 January 2014 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two months, until 20 March 2014, holding that the circumstances which had prompted the application of a custodial measure had not changed.
On 8 April 2014 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment to take account of the previous unserved sentence.
On 26 May 2014 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal and increased the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.
On 13 October 2014 a judge at the Supreme Court of Russia referred the case to the Presidium of the Regional Court for examination in a cassation review procedure.
On 19 November 2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 8 April 2014 and the appeal decision of 26 May 2014 because the applicant had been convicted without a preliminary hearing.
The case was remitted for fresh examination to the District Court and the applicant’s detention was extended for three months, until 19 February 2015.
On 16 February 2015 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two months to 19 April 2015, finding again that the circumstances which had prompted the custodial measure had not changed.
On 2 March 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment to take account of the previous unserved sentence.
The above judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 March 2015.
While waiting for hearings in his case to start the applicant was detained in the holding area of the District Court in a metal cage measuring two square metres.
A nearby cell of the same size was occupied by a guard dog.
The applicant was also held in a metal cage during the hearings.
On the days of the court hearings the applicant did not receive sufficient food (most of the time he received dry snacks and had limited access to drinking water) and was deprived of walks outside.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention at the remand prison (overcrowding and appalling material and sanitary conditions in the cells) and the conditions of his detention at the court (caging in the holding area and courtroom and a lack of food).
The applicant further complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand was unlawful (after 19 November 2014) and not based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF LYUFI v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 23540/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lyufi v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 May 2015. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr V.V. Levenok, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained principally about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court notes that the applicant was kept a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of his 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. 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 applicant’s confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tarakanov v. Russia (no. 20403/05, §§ 45-49, 28 November 2013) and Eduard Shabalin v. Russia (no. 1937/05, §§ 33-37, 16 October 2014). 11. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of his detention in a pre-trial facility and under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. 12. The Court has examined the complaint under Article 3 and finds that the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020). 13. The Court has examined the complaint under Article 5 § 3 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. 14. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 15. 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.”
16. 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 17. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
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
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
23540/15
06/05/2015
Konstantin Yanovich LYUFI
1974
Levenok Vasiliy Vasilyevich
Krasnodar
Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar
02/03/2015
Article 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre‐trial detention – when remitting the applicant’s case for a retrial on 19/11/2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention without indicating any particular reason for such a decision. 9,750
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF LYUFI v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 23540/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lyufi v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 May 2015. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr V.V. Levenok, a lawyer practising in Krasnodar. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained principally about his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7. The Court notes that the applicant was kept a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of his 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. 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 applicant’s confinement in a metal cage before the court during the criminal proceedings against him amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. The applicant submitted another complaint which also raised an issue under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tarakanov v. Russia (no. 20403/05, §§ 45-49, 28 November 2013) and Eduard Shabalin v. Russia (no. 1937/05, §§ 33-37, 16 October 2014). 11. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of his detention in a pre-trial facility and under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. 12. The Court has examined the complaint under Article 3 and finds that the applicant should avail himself of the new remedy introduced in the Russian Federation, which the Court declared effective in its recent decision of Shmelev and Others v. Russia ((dec.), nos. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020). 13. The Court has examined the complaint under Article 5 § 3 and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, it does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention. 14. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 15. 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.”
16. 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 and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 17. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
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
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
23540/15
06/05/2015
Konstantin Yanovich LYUFI
1974
Levenok Vasiliy Vasilyevich
Krasnodar
Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar
02/03/2015
Article 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre‐trial detention – when remitting the applicant’s case for a retrial on 19/11/2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention without indicating any particular reason for such a decision. 9,750
2,000
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
Other complaints under well‐established case‐law
Amount awarded for non‐pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
23540/15
06/05/2015
Konstantin Yanovich LYUFI
1974
Levenok Vasiliy Vasilyevich
Krasnodar
Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar
02/03/2015
Article 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre‐trial detention – when remitting the applicant’s case for a retrial on 19/11/2014 the Presidium of the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention without indicating any particular reason for such a decision. 9,750
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.