CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .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 VASILEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 25655/20 and 17 others – see appended list)           JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 15 September 2022       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Vasilevskiy and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Mikhail Lobov , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25 August 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 of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and about unavailability of an effective domestic remedy in this respect. 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 ARTICLES 8 AND 13 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained about detention under permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities and about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 8 and   13 of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 8 “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.” Article 13 “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.” 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 (1) 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) and (2) does not presuppose any balancing exercise or enable an individual to obtain a judicial review of the proportionality of his or her placement under permanent video surveillance to the vested interests in securing his or her privacy (ibid., §   108). 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 in post ‑ conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law” and that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints in that respect. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles   8 and 13 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 admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 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 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   Detention facility Period of detention Specific circumstances     25655/20 16/12/2020 Vladimir Valeryevich VASILEVSKIY 1978 IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 09/02/2019 - pending detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators     47201/20 06/10/2020 Andrey Dmitriyevich OSIPOV 1998 IK-31 Komi Republic 27/01/2020 - 16/12/2020 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     10512/21 30/12/2020 Artem Aleksandrovich LUTSENKO 1998 IK-31 Komi Republic 27/09/2019 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     11369/21 04/02/2021 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich IGUSHEV 1977 IK-25 Komi Republic 26/02/2020 - pending detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     11420/21 04/02/2021 Eduard Viktorovich BAKHONSKIY 1984 IK-1 Komi Republic,   IK-31 Komi Republic 19/07/2019 - 26/09/2020   26/09/2020 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance     12843/21 10/02/2021 Eduard Vasilyevich PODOROV 1977 IK-25 Komi Republic 13/08/2015 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     12847/21 10/02/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich POCHEKUTOV 1983 IK-25 Komi Republic 15/04/2012 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room     14240/21 25/02/2021 Aleksey Yuryevich SEVIZDRAL 1987 IK-25 Komi Republic 06/04/2017 - pending opposite-sex operators     14919/21 09/02/2021 Dilovar Sharifovich ASOMUDINOV 1986 IK-25 Komi Republic 31/07/2019 - pending opposite-sex operators   15317/21 03/03/2021 Maksim Alekseyevich SAVIN 1978 IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 01/09/2019 - pending opposite-sex operators   16120/21 07/03/2021 Maksim Aleksandrovich LETNIKOV 1988 IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 31/07/2019 - pending opposite-sex operators   17037/21 12/03/2021 Ivan Viktorovich ANASHKIN 1983 IK-25 Komi Republic 28/01/2016 - pending opposite-sex operators   17172/21 26/02/2021 Mikhail Yuryevich SHAPOVAL 1992 IK-25 Komi Republic since 2019 - pending opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance   17182/21 24/02/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BOLDYREV 1987 IK-25 Komi Region 23/11/2015 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   17874/21 14/03/2021 Aleksey Mikhaylovich VOYEVODIN 1984 IK-18 Yamalo ‑ Nenetskiy Region 30/07/2017 - 16/08/2021 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance   19703/21 20/04/2021 Mukhamed Volodevich ZHEMUKHOV 1986 IK-25 Komi Republic 10/07/2014 - pending opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   25231/21 09/04/2021 Nikolay Alekseyevich PUGAREVICH 1990 IK-25 Komi Republic 12/2019 - pending opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room   25703/21 20/04/2021 Denis Nikolayevich ANDRIYEVSKIY 1991 IK-25 Komi Republic 23/01/2017 - pending opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room