The applicant complained of different aspects relating to his detention and, in particular, about permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facility.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Puzanov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications (nos. 26895\/14, 7836\/15 and\u00a025574\/17) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 5 May 2014, 19 January 2015 and 31 January 2017, respectively, by a Russian national, Igor Fridrikhovich Puzanov, born in 1975 and currently in detention.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applications and their relevant details are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of different aspects relating to his detention and, in particular, about permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facility.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained of the permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article\u00a08 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 8 \u00a7 1<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.<\/p>\n 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a027057\/06 and 2 others, 2 July 2019). In Gorlov and Others, the Court summed up the general principles concerning the detainees\u2019 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\u2019s right to respect for his or her privacy (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 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\u2019 right to respect of their private life (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 97-98).<\/p>\n 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 this complaint. It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicant under permanent video surveillance when confined to his cell in post-conviction detention facilities was not \u201cin accordance with law\u201d.<\/p>\n 9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article\u00a08 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. The applicant further complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about poor conditions of his transportation on multiple occasions since 2016, as well as about his placement in a metal cage (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Tomov and\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a092-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.\u00a0Russia [GC], nos. 32541\/08 and\u00a043441\/08, \u00a7 79, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to placement in a metal cage in court hearings).<\/p>\n IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about another aspect of his detention, that is his ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections to the State Duma, as well as under Article\u00a03 of the Convention about his past stays in poor conditions of detention in different pre-trial detention centres.\u00a0Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine neither the admissibility nor the merits of the remaining complaints (see, among many others, Zhirkova and others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 16203\/13 and 4 others, \u00a7 48, 30\u00a0March 2021, with further references).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case law, as well as to the previous awards made to Mr\u00a0Puzanov (see, for instance, Tyurin and Others v. Russia (dec) [Committee], no. 53555\/14, 14\u00a0June 2018, and Nikolayev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.\u00a031113\/15 and 7\u00a0others, 26\u00a0July 2018), the Court does not find it necessary to make any award of just satisfaction in the present case (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no.\u00a044363\/14 etc., \u00a7 12, 4 June 2020). The finding of violations of the Convention will constitute sufficient just satisfaction to the applicant in the present case.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaint concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints lodged under Article\u00a03 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention and Article 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli ____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF PUZANOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 26895\/14 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n15 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong>
\nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name<\/strong>
\nYear of birth<\/strong><\/td>\nDetention facility<\/strong><\/td>\n Period of detention<\/strong><\/td>\n Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n\n 26895\/14
\n05\/05\/2014
\nand
\n7836\/15
\n19\/01\/2015
\nand
\n25574\/17
\n31\/01\/2017<\/td>\nIgor Fridrikhovich PUZANOV<\/strong>
\n1975<\/td>\nIK-27 Kirov Region<\/td>\n 02\/12\/2019 – 24\/01\/2020<\/td>\n Art. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – during the trial proceedings, in a number of hearings, before the Tsentralnyy District Court of Sochi (conviction on 17\/12\/2013);
\nArt. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport \u2013 transport on multiple occasions between 2016 and 2021 by van, train, and placement in transit cells; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, overcrowding, no or restricted access to potable water; no or restricted access to toilet, poor quality of food;
\nArt. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law to complain about poor conditions of transport.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n