The applicants complained principally of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights<\/strong> 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. 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. 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\u2019 right to respect of their private life 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.<\/p>\n 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 the pre\u2011trial and post\u2011conviction detention facilities was not \u201cin accordance with law\u201d. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n European Court of Human Rights<\/p>\n FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Resin and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/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 applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/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. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17\u00a0January 2023).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The applicants complained principally of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0The 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\u00a08 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\u00a081-82). 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\u2019 right to respect of their private life (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7\u00a097-98) 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., \u00a7\u00a0108).<\/p>\n 9. 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 the pre\u2011trial and post\u2011conviction detention facilities was not \u201cin accordance with law\u201d.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a08 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill\u2011founded 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, among other authorities, Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993\/08, 28\u00a0November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027\/10, 8 January 2013, concerning inadequate medical treatment in detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525\/07 and 60800\/08, 10 January 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of detention in a remand prison; N.T. v. Russia, no.\u00a014727\/11, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a042-52, 2 June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of lifers\u2019 detention under strict imprisonment regime; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578\/12, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 33172\/16, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069\u201183, 28 May 2019, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities).<\/p>\n 12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint lodged by the applicants under Article\u00a013 of the Convention in respect of their placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no.\u00a010597\/13, \u00a7 27, 26\u00a0March 2019).<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. Mr Aliyev (application no.\u00a014686\/21) and Mr Babayan (application no.\u00a024308\/21) also raised other complaints under Articles\u00a08 and 13 of the Convention concerning their allocation to a remote colony.<\/p>\n 14. The Court has examined Mr Aliyev\u2019s complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 15. As to Mr Babayan\u2019s complaints, the Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist. He is no longer detained and no longer faces any particular obstacles or difficulty in maintaining his family life. The Court further notes that, following the enactment of the amendments to the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the \u201cCES\u201d) on 1 April 2020 (in force as of 29 September 2020) which introduced an effective remedy for the complaints about the breaches of Article 8 of the Convention, as regards allocation or transfer of prisoners to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, it has dismissed those complaints for the applicants\u2019 failure to exhaust a new remedy (see Dadusenko and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 36027\/19 and 3\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a025\u201134, 7 September 2021).<\/p>\n 16. Regard being had to its findings in Dadusenko and Others (cited above) and its established approach, that, in cases concerning structural problems at the domestic level, its role, once the general measures have been implemented by the respondent State, cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in repetitive cases arising from the same systemic situation (see Tamamshev and Others v.\u00a0Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 57368\/19 and 59831\/19, 7\u00a0September 2021), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention) and that the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine. Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. Regard being had to the Court\u2019s case\u2011law (see Gorlov and Others, cited above, \u00a7 120, with further references, which imposed on the respondent State a legal obligation, under Article\u00a046 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 in respect of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention established by it (see paragraphs 7-10 above). As to the remainder of the issues examined in the present case and regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see paragraph 11 above), including the previous awards made by the Court to the applicant, Mr Resin (see, for instance, Resin\u00a0v.\u00a0Russia\u00a0[Committee], no. 9798\/12, \u00a7\u00a049, 29 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants\u2019 complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of application no.\u00a014686\/21 inadmissible, decides to strike a part of application no.\u00a024308\/21 out of it list of cases as regards the applicant\u2019s allocation to a remote colony and finds that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the placement in a metal cage in the courtroom;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the 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;<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina P\u00e9ter Paczolay _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX
\n
\nCASE OF RESIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 41090\/18 and 20 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 November 2023<\/p>\n
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, President,
\nGilberto Felici,
\nRaffaele Sabato, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar President<\/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