FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BURTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 45302/19 and 34 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Burtsev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 January 2024,
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 pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. 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. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention7. 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.
8. 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 summarised 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 (ibid., §§ 97-98).
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 when confined to their cells in pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. 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‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (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 November 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. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings; N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, 2 June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of lifers’ detention under strict imprisonment regime and routine handcuffing; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Govorushko v. Russia, no. 42940/06, 25 October 2007, and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; and Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, 6 February 2016, concerning domestic courts’ refusal to bring detainees to hearings in civil cases).
12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by the applicants under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of their placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Gorlov and Others, cited above, § 120, with further references, 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 in itself a sufficient just satisfaction, as regards the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court also considers that the finding of a violation in application no. 4535/21 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities;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);Holds that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, as regards the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and the remainder of the complaints lodged by Mr Korablev (application no. 4535/21); Holds(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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Period of detention
Specific circumstances
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
45302/19
14/08/2019
Nikolay Yuryevich BURTSEV
1988
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
19/10/2006 – pending as of 16/09/2022
(the applicant is a lifer)
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in metal cages during court hearings before the Leninskiy District Court of the Perm Region, Oktyabrskiy District Court of the Perm Region, Labytnangskiy Town Court, Perm Regional Court (by way of videoconference from a metal cage), Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita and Yamalo-Nenetsk Regional Court (in all courts by way of video conference),
Art. 6 (1) - absence of detainees from civil proceedings - non-pecuniary damage, 28/09/2020, Leninskiy District Court of Perm, appeal - 24/03/2021, Perm Regional Court, final - 24/09/2021, Supreme Court of Russia
9,000
48941/19
02/09/2019
Aleksandr Anatolyevich ORTIN
1980
Konakov Andrey Pavlovich
St Petersburg
SIZO-4 St Petersburg, Haas Regional Hospital
27/01/2018-13/11/2018 SIZO-4 St Petersburg, 14/11/2018-12/02/2019 Haass Regional Hospital;
SIZO-1 St Petersburg 12/02/2019-12/03/2019
opposite-sex operators
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - between 27/01/2018 - 12/03/2019 and of house arrest since 12/03/2019 (as of 16/09/2022); fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice,
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
1,600
57812/19
23/10/2019
Dmitriy Sergeyevich BOLOTOV
1988
IK-25 Komi Republic
31/03/2021- 24/06/2021
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in SHIZO cell
0
3423/20
03/12/2019
Mikhail Nikolayevich SHULEPOV
1990
IZ-11/1 Syktyvkar, Komi Republic
26/04/2019-21/01/2020
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention and of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van from 26/04/2019 to 17/10/2019, less than 0.5 sq. m. of personal space; applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light; transport on multiple occasions,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-19 Komi Republic, from 26/02/2020 to 19/10/2020, 2.13 sq. m of personal space
4,600
2578/21
23/11/2020
Valeriy Andreyevich BALIN
1965
IK-5 Vologda Region
20/10/1994, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime - the applicant complains that, even though the strict regime of detention is no longer applicable to him, he continues to be detained in the cells containing no more than three persons, with the outdoor exercise not exceeding 2 hours per day. He also complains of routine handcuffing in IK-5 Vologda Region since 20/10/1994. The domestic courts dismissed his grievances. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 03/11/2020,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of routine handcuffing of life-prisoners in detention facilities
3,900
4535/21
12/10/2020
Denis Anatolyevich KORABLEV
1984
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
07/07/2007-17/10/2020
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train, 17/10/2020 - 17/12/2020, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to warm water, passive smoking, overcrowding (0.8 sq. m. of personal space),
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - from 14/05/2020 to 27/04/2021 at the Fifth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, Labytnangi Town Court, Aznakayevo Town Court, Kaluga Regional Court, Sovetskaya Gavan Town Court, Stavropol Regional Court, the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, Yamalo-Nenets Regional Court, Nanayskiy District Court of Khabarovsk Region, Tsentralnyy District Court of Khabarovsk, Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Arzamas Town Court, Salekhard Town Court, Penza Regional Court, Leninskiy District Court of Perm, Kirovsk Town Court, Polyarnozorinskiy District Court of Murmansk Region, Amursk Town Court, Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, St Petersburg City Court, Tsentralnyy District Court of Tula
0
9051/21
11/01/2021
Artem Valeryevich STYAZHKOV
1989
IK-25, IZ-1,
IZ-2, IZ-3,
IK-31 Komi Republic
15/05/5017, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - train compartment, restricted access to potable water and toilet, no bed linen, transportation for more than 38 hours, overcrowded (7 inmates),
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic, 13/05/2019 - 07/08/2020
8,500
9684/21
25/01/2021
Aleksey Vasilyevich BUSHMANOV
1979
IK-2 Komi Republic
15/11/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
10854/21
27/05/2021
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KALUGIN
1978
Osipov Artem Leonidovich
Moscow
SIZO-1 Orenburg
23/07/2020- 16/12/2020
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the applicant complains that he participated in the trial by way of videoconference from a metal cage: the Fourth Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction between 10/11/2020 and 30/11/2020
7,500
10979/21
29/01/2021
Shakhboz Kholmatovich MALIKOV
1991
IK-25 Komi Republic
28/10/2020 -
June 2021
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
12266/21
29/07/2021
Asif Orudzh ogly ALLAKHVERDIYEV
1985
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
18/06/2020 - 18/06/2021
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
15609/21
17/02/2021
Pavel Alekseyevich DUBOUSOV
1983
IK-37 Perm Region
01/09/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite‑sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
17784/21
02/06/2021
Zaur Inalovich SHASHEV
1978
IK-8 Komi Republic
18/03/2021, pending as of 16/09/2022
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-8 Komi Republic, 15/07/2014 –ongoing on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, 2.27 sq. m. per inmate, overcrowding
5,700
18797/21
27/12/2021
Maksim Nikolayevich KOZLOV
1981
IK-19 Komi Republic
22/11/2019, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
19439/21
06/10/2021
Gevork Vazgenovich AYRAPETYAN
1989
IK-25 Komi Republic
2018, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
20022/21
17/03/2021
Nikolay Vasilyevich BASKOV
1989
IK-25 Komi Republic
18/01/2016-09/06/2021
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
20308/21
27/03/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich VETROV
1998
IK-25 Komi Republic
19/10/2018, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
20314/21
15/02/2021
Dmitriy Maksimovich BELOUSOV
1990
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
22/10/2014, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region, 22/10/2014 – pending as of 16/09/2022, 3.2 sq. m of personal space, 5 toilets, 170 inmates,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
10,000
20338/21
29/03/2021
Aleksey Valeryevich LARIN
1971
IK-29 Kirov Region
26/01/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, indefinite duration of storage of record-keeping
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
20340/21
16/03/2021
Denis Nikolayevich SHAROV
1986
IK-31 Komi Republic
13/02/2015 - 09/08/2021
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
20814/21
31/03/2021
Vladimir Aleksandrovich SMIRNOV
1984
IK-25 Komi Republic
July 2019 - 23/09/2021
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
21105/21
31/03/2021
Vladimir Leonidovich KICHIGIN
1952
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
26/11/2017, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
22550/21
01/07/2021
Anatoliy Aleksandrovich ADYG-TYULYUSH
1978
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region
01/09/2017 - 18/02/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
0
22722/21
07/04/2021
Azamzhon Rustamzhonovich KHUSENOV
1990
IK-25 Komi Republic
29/02/2016, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
22724/21
07/04/2021
Artur Ruslanovich NEMAZANNIKOV
1995
IK-25 Komi Republic
02/09/2019, pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
22739/21
09/04/2021
Arsen Magomedovich ISMAILOV
1992
IK-25 Komi Republic
18/12/2019 - 03/11/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
22901/21
05/04/2021
Igor Yevgenyevich GORLOV
1965
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetsk Region, IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
02/07/2019 - 27/10/2020
17/12/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
23233/21
07/04/2021
Albert Masnaviyevich KHUZIN
1973
IK-25 Komi Republic
26/11/2015, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
23906/21
13/04/2021
Aleksandr Viktorovich ASABOV
1973
IK-25 Komi Republic
October 2019, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
24118/21
17/04/2021
Aleksandr Vadimovich KOVALEVSKIY
1983
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region, IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
03/2010- 16/04/2021
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
0
24234/21
02/06/2021
Fedor Leonidovich VARLAKOV
1986
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region
13/01/2019-18/02/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - overcrowding, lack of handrails, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, transfer lasted over 10 hours,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport
1,000
25249/21
19/04/2021
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich GERASIMOV
1977
SIZO-1 Kamchatka Region
15/05/2020-22/03/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
0
25331/21
16/08/2021
Yevgeniy Mikhaylovich VOROBYEV
1976
LIU-37 Krasnoyarsk Region
29/09/2020-16/02/2021
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
25649/21
26/04/2021
Sergey Venidiktovich NAUMOV
1967
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
26/11/2017, pending as of 16/09/2022
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
0
26373/21
21/04/2021
Vagif Seydaly ogly KERIMOV
1962
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
23/12/2020, pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region, 23/12/2020 - 03/12/2021, 2,8 sq. m. per inmate, 160 inmates per brigade, 6 toilets; lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light, overcrowding,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention
5,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.