THIRD SECTION
CASE OF FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 25032/18 and 11 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 June 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Fetisov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2021,
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. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained 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, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... .
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.”
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. 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 (ibid., §§ 97-98).
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 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”.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. The 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of detention during transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Gorlov and Others, cited above, §§ 106-10, concerning lack of an effective remedy for the complaint about a permanent video surveillance). REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 25032/18, 64665/19 and 13683/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. 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 follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pukhachev and Zaretskiy v. Russia, nos. 17494/16 and 29203/16, §§ 14-16, 7 November 2017), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or 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 the remainder of the applications nos. 25032/18, 64665/19 and 13683/20 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); 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 10 June 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaDarian Pavli
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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]
25032/18
03/05/2018
Sergey Olegovich FETISOV
1983
SIZO-1
St Petersburg
since 17/12/2017 and pending
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - detention in a transit cell and transport by van from 06/05/2016 to 16/05/2018; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient electric light, inadequate temperature, no safety belts
1,000
29862/18
08/08/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich NOVIKOV
1988
SIZO-6
St Petersburg
24/01-28/09/2018
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van in a single-occupancy "stakan" cubicle; between 12/02/2018 and 24/06/2018; lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, no belts or handles, applicant transported on numerous occasions
1,000
54287/18
05/11/2018
Levon Andranikovich SHAKHBAZYAN
1982
Apacheva Anna Manolisovna
Gelendzhik
IVS Anapa
from 11/08/2016 to 10/05/2018 on numerous occasions no less than 190 days in total
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 inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and detention in transit cells; on numerous occasions between the detention facilities and the courthouse from 11/08/2016 to 10/05/2018; mouldy or dirty cell, lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water
1,000
54497/18
25/10/2018
Roman Igorevich NOVIKOV
1989
IK-23 Irkutsk Region
30/05/2018 - 05/03/2020
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport -
by van - train (OIK-36 IK-5 Krasnoyarsk - OIU-25 IK-23 Irkutsk Region) from 29/05/2018 to 30/05/2018;
by train, van, rounds trip from the colony to the prison hospital from 27/10/2018 to 23/11/2018; 0.3 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding, lack of fresh air, restricted access to toilet
1,000
1605/19
13/12/2018
Aleksandr Sergeyevich PASHENTSEV
1976
Frolova Inessa Igorevna
St Petersburg
SIZO-6
St Petersburg
13/07/2018 - 13/08/2019
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 inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport on numerous occasions and detention in transit cells from 14/09/2016 to 03/07/2018; to take part in court hearings; overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, mouldy or dirty cell, lack of or insufficient electric light, passive smoking
1,000
50055/19
16/01/2020
Korney Alfredovich PYACHYURA
1990
Konakov Andrey Pavlovich
St Petersburg
SIZO-1
St Petersburg
20/06/2019 - pending
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport on many occasions by van and detention in a transit cell; from 04/05/2018 to 13/12/2019; inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air; 0.3 sq. m of personal space
1,000
54168/19
13/12/2019
Dmitriy Grigoryevich TIKHOMIROV
1991
Konakov Andrey Pavlovich
St Petersburg
SIZO-6 St Petersburg, SIZO-1 St Petersburg
04/02/2018 - pending
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - detention in convoys cell and transport by van on numerous occasions; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of personal space; starting from 23/01/2018 and ongoing
1,000
63065/19
23/01/2020
Dmitriy Nikolayevich GUSHCHIN
1991
IK-23 Irkutsk Region
17/09/2019 - 25/01/2020
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and train on 16-17/09/2019; lack of fresh air, insufficient number of sleeping places, inadequate temperature, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water
1,000
64665/19
13/12/2019
Svyatoslav Arturovich KUDRIN
1994
IK-31 Krasnoyarsk Region
11/09/2018-23/11/2019
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Train (Syktykvar-Ukhta) roundtrip 21/01/2020 - 05/02/2020 insufficient number of sleeping places, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, inadequate temperature, lack of fresh air
1,000
3384/20
25/12/2019
Aleksey Vladimirovich GUBANOV
1986
Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
SIZO-1 Komi Republic
18/07/2019-25/07/2019
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van and train on 17/07/2019 and 25/07/2019; 0.3-0.4 sq. m of personal space; overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, passive smoking, temporary disabled person,
1,000
11613/20
24/07/2019
Oleg Nikolayevich VESELENKO
1977
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
10/10/2018 – 12/03/2019
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport and permanent video surveillance in detention facility,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by van between several detention facilities in the period from 15/10/2019 to 05/11/2019; 0.23 sq. m of personal space; lack of fresh air, inadequate temperature, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding
1,000
13683/20
20/01/2020
Denis Vladimirovich ANTONOV
1992
Yakovleva Tatyana Alekseyevna
St Petersburg
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
12/01/2018 – early 2020
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transfers by van/ from 10/01/2018 to 16/08/2019; 0.3 sq. m per person, overcrowding, lack of fresh air, restricted access to toilet
1,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy