I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KLIMENKO v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2010-12-14
  • Communication date: 2016-03-18
  • Application number(s): 52153/15
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 6, 6-1, 34
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Art. 6-1
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.894465
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Viktorovich Klimenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and is currently in detention.
He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Kiryanov, a lawyer practising in Taganrog, Rostov Region.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 5 February 2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft.
On 7 February 2014 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded the applicant in custody.
The applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-61/2 in Taganrog.
The custodial measure was subsequently extended by the Town Court on several occasions.
On 20 February 2015 the criminal case against the applicant was submitted to the Town Court for trial.
In the course of the hearing on 18 August 2015 the prosecutor asked the trial court to extend the custodial measure applied to the applicant.
On the same day the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 November 2015.
In the courtroom where the applicant’s proceedings before the Town Court were being heard the applicant was confined to a metal cage.
The layout of the cage rendered the applicant’s communication with his lawyer very difficult: they could not communicate orally without being heard and any exchange of documents between them was only possible after they had been presented to and read by the judge and the court ushers.
The applicant appealed against the decision of 18 August 2015 to the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).
In his appeal the applicant complained, in particular, that his placement in the metal cage during proceedings before the Town Court had been humiliating and had rendered difficult his communication with the lawyer.
On 4 September 2015 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 18 August 2015 on appeal.
The court held, in particular, that the issues arising out of the applicant’s circumstances in the courtroom did not affect the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and fell outside the court’s scope of examination.
2.
Medical assistance in remand prison Upon his arrival in the remand prison on 7 February 2014 the applicant was examined by a paramedic.
He made no health-related complaints.
On 10 February 2015 the applicant was again examined by the paramedic of the remand prison, who recommended that a copy of the applicants’ pre‐detention medical file be obtained.
On 3 April 2015 the applicant complained of a headache.
The paramedic examined the applicant, diagnosed him with vegeto-vascular dystonia of the hypertonic type and prescribed treatment.
A consultation with a doctor was recommended.
On 14 April 2015 the applicant was examined by a doctor.
He was diagnosed with second stage hypertension, of the second degree, of the fourth risk group and prescribed treatment.
On 6 May 2015 the applicant was examined by the doctor again.
The prescribed treatment was maintained.
On 8 May 2015 the applicant’s pre-detention medical file was obtained.
On 7 October and 2 December 2015 the applicant was examined by a medical panel of the town emergency hospital, which confirmed the applicant’s diagnosis of hypertension.
On 3 December 2015 the applicant was transferred to a prison hospital for a review of his treatment plan.
3.
Medical examination with a view to determining whether the applicant could be released from detention on health grounds On 6 and 17 February 2014 the applicant’s lawyer requested the investigator to order a medical examination for the applicant with a view to determining whether the latter was fit for detention.
The requests remained unexamined.
In May 2015 the applicant sent a similar request to the head of the remand prison.
His request was supported by medical documents, confirming that he suffered from hypertension and the consequences of myocardial infarction.
The request remained unexamined.
The applicant challenged the inaction of the head of the remand prison before a court.
On 16 July 2015 the Town Court found the inactivity of the head of the remand prison unlawful and obliged him to examine the applicant’s request.
This decision became final on 21 August 2015.
On 7 October and 2 December 2015 the applicant was examined by the medical panel of the town emergency hospital, which established the absence of medical grounds which would allow the applicant’s release from detention.
4.
The applicant’s confinement in the psychoneurological unit of the prison hospital As mentioned above, on 3 December 2015 the applicant, together with his co-defendant R., was transferred to prison hospital for a review of his treatment plan.
Upon their arrival at the prison hospital, the applicant and R. were asked which of them had complained to the European Court.
The applicant replied that it had been him, following which he was placed in the closed-off type of psychoneurological unit of the hospital so as “to think ahead before submitting any further complaints to the Court”.
The applicant stayed there until 20 December 2015.
His medical treatment in the above period was limited to fluorography and electrocardiogram tests.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice, relevant international materials and practice For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice regarding the confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom before a trial court see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.
32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts).
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom during proceedings before the Town Court was humiliating.
He further complains, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), that his placement in the metal cage rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair as the security arrangement in question prevented his free and confidential communication with his lawyer.
The applicant further complains, under Article 34 of the Convention, that his placement in the psychoneurological unit of the prison hospital between 3 December and 20 December 2015 was in breach of his right to individual petition.

Judgment

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF IVAN v. SLOVAKIA

(Application no.
49362/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2010

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ivan v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,Ján Šikuta,Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in an application (no. 49362/06) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovak national, Mr Pavol Ivan (“the applicant”), on 6 December 2006. 2. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. 3. On 7 February 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.
The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žabokreky. 5. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 6. On 9 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Martin District Court. He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car. 7. On 10 October 2003 the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave to join another person as a defendant. The District Court granted the request. 8. On 5 December 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the Žilina Regional Court which decided on the defendant's appeal on 26 January 2004. 9. On 13 July 2004 an expert was asked to prepare an opinion. The expert opinion was submitted on 27 April 2006. 10. On 8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 11. The Constitutional Court held that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Substantial delays imputable to the District Court had occurred. The proceedings had lasted 11 years and no decision had been delivered on the merits. 12. The Constitutional Court awarded 80,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. 13. On 12 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed. 14. On 31 October 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the judgment. The decision became final on 27 February 2008. THE LAW
I.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15.
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Admissibility
16.
The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time since the amount of just satisfaction awarded to him by the Constitutional Court was adequate in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the Constitutional Court's judgment had had preventive effect since four months after its finding the District Court had delivered a judgment. As to the course of the proceedings following the Constitutional Court's judgment, they submitted that the applicant was required to have recourse again to the Constitutional Court under Article 127 of the Constitution. In any event, there was no indication of any unreasonable delay. 17. The applicant disagreed. 18. The Court observes that the applicant's status as a victim depends on whether the redress afforded to him at the domestic level was adequate and sufficient having regard to Article 41 of the Convention. This issue falls to be determined in the light of the principles established under the Court's case-law (see, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178‐213, ECHR 2006-V and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69‐98, ECHR 2006-V). 19. The Court notes that the applicant initiated the proceedings on 9 June 1995 by lodging a claim with the District Court. Except for one procedural issue which had been decided by the Regional Court the case had been dealt with by the District Court for almost eleven years. 20. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 80,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This amount is disproportionately low, having regard to what the Court generally awards in similar cases. 21. The redress obtained by the applicant at the domestic level was thus insufficient (see Scordino (no. 1), cited above, §§ 214-5). The applicant can accordingly still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of a violation of his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. 22. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 23. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 24. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above). 25. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. 26. The Court notes that after the delivery of the Constitutional Court's judgment the proceedings before the District Court lasted one year and eight months at two levels of jurisdiction. Thus, the overall length of the proceedings under consideration was twelve years and eight months at two levels of jurisdictions. 27. In the light of the above-mentioned considerations and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 28. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
29.
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.”
A.
Damage
30.
The applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 31. The Government left the matter to the Court's discretion and requested that the award granted to the applicant at the domestic level be taken into account. 32. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non‐pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 3,700 under that head. B. Costs and expenses
33.
The applicant did not submit a claim for costs and expenses. C. Default interest
34.
The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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.
Declares the application admissible;

2.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months EUR 3,700 (three thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4.
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Fatoş AracıLech Garlicki Deputy RegistrarPresident