CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 29 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s71833996 { width:42.55pt; display:inline-block } .s19D06859 { width:234.09pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7486CA7E { width:0.34pt; display:inline-block } .s34EC51A7 { width:174.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s323F263B { height:27.7pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION CASE OF FIRSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 66799/17 and 14 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 29 April 2021       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Firsov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 April 2021, 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 of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained about detention under permanent video surveillance in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... . 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 7.     The Court has already established, in an earlier case against Russia, that the national legal framework governing the placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance in penal institutions falls short of the standards set out in Article   8 of the Convention (see Gorlov and Others v.   Russia (nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019). In Gorlov and Others , the Court summed up the general principles concerning the detainees’ right to respect for private life reiterating that placing a person under permanent video surveillance whilst in detention was to be regarded as a serious interference with the individual’s right to respect for his or her privacy (ibid., §§   81-82). It has further concluded that the national law cannot be regarded as being sufficiently clear, precise or detailed to have afforded appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities with the detainees’ right to respect of their private life (ibid., §§   97-98). 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. It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicants under permanent video surveillance when confined to their cells in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   8 of the Convention. 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, Gorlov and Others , cited above, with further references, §   120, which imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation, under Article   46 of the Convention, to implement, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, such measures as they consider appropriate to secure the right of the applicants and other persons in their position to respect of their private life), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 April 2021, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Detention facility Period of detention Specific circumstances     66799/17 18/08/2017 Vladimir Borisovich FIRSOV 1978 Bagryanskiy Filipp Valeryevich Vladimir IZ-1 Mordoviya Republic 01/07/2014 - 21/02/2017 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     5655/18 05/01/2018 Aleksandr Petrovich YAMASHKIN 1979 Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna Saransk IZ-13/2 Mordoviya Republic 28/12/2016 - 27/07/2017 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     5580/19 29/12/2018 Aleddin Farkhad ogly KERIMOV 1965     IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 07/09/2017 - 20/08/2018 opposite-sex operators     7590/19 17/01/2019 Sergey Vitalyevich LARIONOV 1970 Prozorov Artem Andreyevich Furmanov IK-6 Ivanovo Region 29/05/2014 - 16/10/2018 opposite-sex operators     13393/19 10/04/2019 Nikita Vladimirovich TUGLAKOV 1989     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region from May 2018 onwards detention in different cells with video surveillance     19803/19 27/03/2019 Vladimir Konstantinovich GALUSHKIN 1985     IK-15 Krasnoyarsk Region 11/11/2013 - 28/09/2018 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators     22575/19 19/04/2019 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich SHUTOV 1977 Born Aleksandr Viktorovich Moscow IK-5 Ivanovo Region 01/01/2010 - 07/02/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators     32253/19 03/06/2019 Timur Makhmudzhanovich ALLASHOV 1991 Egle Denis Sergeyevich Krasnoyarsk SIZO-1 Zabaykalskiy Region, SIZO-2 Zabaykalskiy Region 13/06/2014 - 04/03/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators     39592/19 23/07/2019 Dmitriy Nikolayevich CHEPAYKIN 1981 Krikun Leonid Leonidovich St Petersburg LIU-4 Kareliya Republic 24/07/2015-24/01/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance   43068/19 29/07/2019 Valeriy Vladimirovich KANAYEV 1978 Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krasnoyarsk OIU-25 IK-24 Irkutsk Region (Krasnoyarsk Regional FSIN Department) 13/01/2012 - 22/02/2019 opposite-sex operators   47908/19 19/07/2019 Andrey Vladimirovich SVERDLOV 1985     LIU-35 Krasnoyarsk Region 10/08/2017 - 24/07/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators   64956/19 25/11/2019 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich MINAKOV 1973 Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich St Petersburg IZ-47/1 Kolpino, St   Petersburg 19/02/2019 - 20/05/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators   3321/20 25/12/2019 Denis Anatolyevich SHUPYRO 1981 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IK-1 Kostroma Region 16/05/2019 - 02/07/2019 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   3377/20 27/12/2019 Mikhail Petrovich SHISHKOV 1968 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma SIZO-1 Kostroma Region 16/05/2019-02/07/2019 opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   3429/20 25/12/2019 Yekaterina Valentinovna STEPANUSHKINA 1987 Vinogradov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kostroma IZ-1 Yaroslavl Region 28/06/2019 - 11/10/2019   opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room