I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in GROMOVOY v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GROMOVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 58388/14 and 8 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gromovoy and Others 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 2 February 2023,
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. At the time of introduction of their applications before the Court the applicants were all convicted prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment. They complained about their confinement in metal cages before the courts during their participation in various civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. In application no. 31924/18, the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in metal cages before the court during their participation in various civil, administrative and criminal proceedings They 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.”
Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading 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.”
In application no. 20910/18 the applicant further complained that his appearance in a metal cage before the court had breached his presumption of innocence. He relied on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
7. The Court notes that 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 in the context of criminal trials and found that such a practice constituted in itself – having regard to its objectively degrading nature – an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 8. In the present cases the applicants were placed in metal cages before the court not in the context of the proceedings for determination of a criminal charge against them (except for the application no. 20910/18, which partially concerned such context), but in the context of civil, administrative and other criminal proceedings. However, 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 metal cages before the court during their participation in civil, administrative and criminal proceedings amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 2 and Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, §§ 27 and 35, 26 March 2019). 11. The applicant in application no. 31924/18 submitted another complaint which raised an issue under Protocol No. 1 to 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 in the light of its findings in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013. 12. 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.”
13. 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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. It further considers that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 58388/14 and 64784/17 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 2 March 2023, 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
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
58388/14
05/07/2014
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY
1983
Dunayeva Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Snezhinsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
03/03/2015

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
64784/17
13/07/2017
Oleg Gennadyevich OSYANIN
1966

Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region
23/03/2017

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
22/06/2017

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
9551/18
09/01/2018
Eduard Yuryevich YUMALOV
1970

Vologda Regional Court
29/09/2017

7,500
17362/18
11/09/2017
Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV
1971

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/03/2017

7,500
20910/18
12/04/2018
Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich SHARAPOV
1979
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
12/10/2017

Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
15/03/2018

7,500
31924/18
19/06/2018
Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV
1978
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
Vologda Town Court
26/04/2018
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections
8,000
1895/19
19/11/2018
Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV
1986
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
17/08/2018

4,750
12035/19
23/01/2019
Sergey Yuryevich OSOKIN
1979

Nevyanskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
08/08/2018

7,500
19268/19
25/03/2019
Roman Sergeyevich KALININ
1984
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
21/12/2018

5,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GROMOVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 58388/14 and 8 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gromovoy and Others 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 2 February 2023,
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. At the time of introduction of their applications before the Court the applicants were all convicted prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment. They complained about their confinement in metal cages before the courts during their participation in various civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. In application no. 31924/18, the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained principally about their confinement in metal cages before the court during their participation in various civil, administrative and criminal proceedings They 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.”
Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article 3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, reading 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.”
In application no. 20910/18 the applicant further complained that his appearance in a metal cage before the court had breached his presumption of innocence. He relied on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
7. The Court notes that 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 in the context of criminal trials and found that such a practice constituted in itself – having regard to its objectively degrading nature – an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 8. In the present cases the applicants were placed in metal cages before the court not in the context of the proceedings for determination of a criminal charge against them (except for the application no. 20910/18, which partially concerned such context), but in the context of civil, administrative and other criminal proceedings. However, 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 metal cages before the court during their participation in civil, administrative and criminal proceedings amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 2 and Article 13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, §§ 27 and 35, 26 March 2019). 11. The applicant in application no. 31924/18 submitted another complaint which raised an issue under Protocol No. 1 to 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 in the light of its findings in Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013. 12. 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.”
13. 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 applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. It further considers that the finding of a violation in applications nos. 58388/14 and 64784/17 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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 2 March 2023, 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
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
58388/14
05/07/2014
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY
1983
Dunayeva Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Snezhinsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
03/03/2015

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
64784/17
13/07/2017
Oleg Gennadyevich OSYANIN
1966

Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region
23/03/2017

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
22/06/2017

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
9551/18
09/01/2018
Eduard Yuryevich YUMALOV
1970

Vologda Regional Court
29/09/2017

7,500
17362/18
11/09/2017
Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV
1971

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/03/2017

7,500
20910/18
12/04/2018
Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich SHARAPOV
1979
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
12/10/2017

Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
15/03/2018

7,500
31924/18
19/06/2018
Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV
1978
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
Vologda Town Court
26/04/2018
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections
8,000
1895/19
19/11/2018
Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV
1986
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
17/08/2018

4,750
12035/19
23/01/2019
Sergey Yuryevich OSOKIN
1979

Nevyanskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
08/08/2018

7,500
19268/19
25/03/2019
Roman Sergeyevich KALININ
1984
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
21/12/2018

5,000

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
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
58388/14
05/07/2014
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich GROMOVOY
1983
Dunayeva Alla Igorevna
Chelyabinsk
Snezhinsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region
03/03/2015

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
64784/17
13/07/2017
Oleg Gennadyevich OSYANIN
1966

Bor Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region
23/03/2017

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
22/06/2017

The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
9551/18
09/01/2018
Eduard Yuryevich YUMALOV
1970

Vologda Regional Court
29/09/2017

7,500
17362/18
11/09/2017
Igor Anatolyevich SOLOVYEV
1971

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court
13/03/2017

7,500
20910/18
12/04/2018
Yevgeniy Yevgenyevich SHARAPOV
1979
Laptev Aleksey Nikolayevich
Moscow
Supreme Court of the Komi Republic
12/10/2017

Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
15/03/2018

7,500
31924/18
19/06/2018
Yevgeniy Viktorovich GLEBOV
1978
Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna
Moscow
Vologda Town Court
26/04/2018
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections
8,000
1895/19
19/11/2018
Ilya Yuryevich TIKHOMIROV
1986
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
17/08/2018

4,750
12035/19
23/01/2019
Sergey Yuryevich OSOKIN
1979

Nevyanskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
08/08/2018

7,500
19268/19
25/03/2019
Roman Sergeyevich KALININ
1984
Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna
Strasbourg
Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region
21/12/2018

5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.