THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KARAVAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26888/21 and 34 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 November 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karavayev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Diana Kovatcheva, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 10 October 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 § 1 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 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).
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 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; 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; Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013, concerning prisoners’ right to vote).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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; and also Anchugov and Gladkov, cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction, as regards the complaints related to the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities, lack of an effective remedy in that respect and a violation of the right to vote in legislative elections. The Court further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the applicants in applications nos. 57734/21 and 59550/21.
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 and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);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 Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and lack of domestic remedies in that regard, as well as under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 related to the complaints about prisoners’ inability to vote in legislative elections; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 57734/21 and 59550/21, 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 7 November 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Ioannis Ktistakis
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]
26888/21
03/04/2021
Andrey Andreyevich KARAVAYEV
1992
IK-37 Perm Region
30/06/2020 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
27026/21
12/05/2021
Dmitriy Sergeyevich FIKERT
1994
SIZO-2 Moscow Region, Settlement colony no. 3 Smolensk Region, Settlement colony no. 3 Kaluga Region
12/10/2017 – 10/12/2021
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
27471/21
13/05/2021
Viktor Vladimirovich ZHILINSKIY
1989
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
24/02/2016 – 04/09/2021
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
28688/21
17/05/2021
Gennadiy Mingishevich KHABBASOV
1973
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
09/12/2017 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
29365/21
30/09/2021
Nikolay Aleksandrovich ISTOMIN
1989
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
09/03/2021 – 03/02/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
29388/21
19/05/2021
Ivan Ivanovich KRIVOSHCHEKOV
1972
Yevenko Alla Borisovna
Novokuznetsk
IK-6 Orenburg Region
21/11/2002 – pending as of 16/09/2022
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
30169/21
12/05/2021
Murat Magomedovich KANIKHOV
1977
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
29/01/2010-16/02/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
44188/21
20/08/2021
Valeriy Anatolyevich MACHULA
1976
IK-25 Komi Republic
17/12/2017 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
45666/21
17/08/2021
Andrey Vladimirovich UPRITSKIY
1988
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region
02/10/2019 - 18/02/2021
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a dormitory
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
46238/21
27/08/2021
Pavel Vasilyevich KUZIVANOV
1997
IK-25 Komi Republic
29/05/2018 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
46375/21
31/08/2021
Valeriy Pavlovich PERMYAKOV
1996
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
06/06/2017-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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
46751/21
03/09/2021
Igor Yuryevich KOSTIN
1984
IK-25 Komi Republic
15/01/2015-pending as of 16/09/2022
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, 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,
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - The applicant was unable to vote in the elections to the State Duma (Parliament) in 2021.
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
46942/21
25/08/2021
Andrey Nikolayevich KOZLYUK
1984
IK-25 Komi Republic (punishment cells)
11/01/2016-02/07/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in the punishment cell
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
47507/21
10/09/2021
Pavel Leonidovich KRAVCHENKO
1989
IK-25 Komi Republic
09/02/2019 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
47830/21
24/08/2021
Yevgeniy Sergeyevich ROGACHEV
1978
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
31/08/2018 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
47831/21
29/06/2021
Rashid Bekmurzayevich IBRAGIMOV
1986
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
June 2019 – 18/03/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
47832/21
20/08/2021
Vyacheslav Sergeyevich PILIPENKO
1982
LIU-1 Tomsk Region
15/12/2017 - 11/12/2021
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
49484/21
16/09/2021
Ilya Sergeyevich MAKAVKIN
1991
IK-25 Komi Republic
09/03/2017 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
57473/21
30/09/2021
Sergey Vladislavovich SOKOLOV
1992
IK-29 Kirov Region
28/05/2017 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
57734/21
27/09/2021
Artem Ivanovich BURMISTROV
1989
Settlement colony no. 10 Irkutsk Region
23/09/2021 – 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 and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, 22/09/2021-23/09/2021, passive smoking, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to warm water, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding
1,000
58690/21
22/10/2021
Pavel Pavlovich ROCHEV
1975
IK-25 Komi Republic, solitary confinement cells
28/11/2016 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
59550/21
24/02/2021
Roman Alekseyevich BAZYLEV
1976
IK-29 Kirov Region
27/04/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-29 Kirov Region, 27/04/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022, 2.5 sq. m. of personal space per inmate, overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, poor quality of potable water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air,
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
11,250
60367/21
17/11/2021
Aleksandr Anatolyevich KRAPIVA
1997
IK-25 Komi Republic
28/09/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
61666/21
30/11/2021
Denis Nikolayevich PANYUKOV
1998
IK-25, Komi Republic
21/05/2018 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
16194/22
02/03/2022
Georgiy Mikhaylovich KANEV
1986
IK-25 Komi Republic
27/06/2018 – pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in punishment cells, 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,
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - the applicant was unable to vote in the elections to the State Duma on 19/09/2021
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
17112/22
25/02/2022
Dmitriy Vladimirovich VAPPER
1996
IK-21 Arkhangelsk Region
11/03/2021 - 31/10/2021
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
18094/22
17/03/2022
Yuriy Viktorovich KURIGANOV
1975
KP-10 Irkutsk Region
24/11/2021 - 05/05/2022
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
19395/22
23/03/2022
Yevgeniy Ivanovich BAKUMENKO
1993
FKU Krasnoyarsk Region, (prison)
01/12/2021 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
20676/22
10/01/2022
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TYRINOV
1980
IK-8 Komi Republic
03/03/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
24955/22
22/04/2022
Sergey Mikhaylovich DAVYDOV
1965
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
26/11/2017-pending as of 16/09/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
25797/22
17/02/2022
Sergey Sergeyevich GUSHCHIN
1980
IK-29 Kirov Region, LIU-12 Kirov Region
09/04/2014 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
28673/22
22/05/2022
Eduard Gagikovich KHACHATRYAN
1984
IK-6 Kirov Region
11/03/2021-19/12/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
34959/22
10/05/2022
Yekaterina Igorevna SINCHENKO
1989
IK-28 Khakassia Republic
09/10/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
44577/22
18/02/2022
Sergey Viktorovich KOFANOV
1981
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
01/10/2018 - 11/02/2022
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
45579/22
05/09/2022
Mariya Sergeyevna MIKHLIK
1982
Yaroslav Sergeyevich MIKHLIK
1990
Settlement colony no. 31 Khakasiya Republic (first applicant),
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region (second applicant)
25/02/2022 – pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.