CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25787/24 Shalva ABULADZE against Georgia lodged on 6 September 2024 communicated on 19 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s placement in a solitary confinement cell from 15 to 21 July 2021, during which he was allegedly kept under permanent video surveillance, including in the open toilet area. On 5 October 2021 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the prison authorities seeking compensation for non-pecuniary loss. The applicant argued that the open toilet area inside the cell was monitored by prison guards, including women, depriving him of any privacy and violating his dignity. On 16 November 2022 the Rustavi City Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and concluded, with reference to the relevant domestic law, that permanent video surveillance in solitary confinement cells was lawful. It did not address the applicant’s allegation concerning video surveillance of the toilet area. On 18 July 2023 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the decision on appeal, noting that the images from the toilet area were covered by a black square, and thus, the applicant’s privacy and dignity had not been violated. The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible on 25   June 2024. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the permanent video surveillance of his cell, including the toilet area. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies in this regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of his placement under permanent video surveillance in the solitary confinement cell, including the toilet area? Was such interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see Vasilică Mocanu v.   Romania , no.   43545/13, §§   36-41, 6 December 2016, and Gorlov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 81-82, 2 July 2019)?   2.     Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as guaranteed by Article   13 of the Convention?