Permanent video surveillance of detainees in their cells. Violation of private life
JUDGEMENT
TYURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA 09.02.2023 (app. nos. 32695/14 and 8 others)
SUMMARY
The applicants, relying on article 8 of the Convention, complained of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities.
The Court considered 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”.
The Court found a violation of article 8 of the Convention.
PROVISION
Article 8
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The applications were lodged between 2014 and 2021 from various applicants. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court found it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Article 8
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities.
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.
Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court had not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. It considered, 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”.
There has, accordingly, been a violation of the article 8 of the Convention.
Other alleged violations
Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court. These complaints were not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they should be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concluded that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Gorlov and Others, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance).
The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the applications 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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It followed that this part of the applications should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
Removal of the applications
As regards applications nos. 42647/16, 18607/18 and 27531/21, in the part concerning conditions of the applicants’ post-conviction detention in breach of national legislation or international agreements of the Russian Federation, the Court was of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining those complaints for the reasons set out below.
The Court noted that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicants have ceased to exist. They are no longer held in correctional facilities in respect of which the complaints have been lodged. It further noted that it was open to the applicants to make resort to a new compensatory remedy, introduced by the Russian Federation on 27 January 2020, in respect of their complaints concerning the conditions of detention in breach of national legislation (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).
Regard being had to its earlier findings that the said remedy presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for redress and offers reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 54), the Court considered that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto did not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
