FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KHATYPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 47699/19 and 25 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 April 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Khatypov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 March 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 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, 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; 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; 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; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; 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).
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 (applications nos. 47699/19 and 52653/20) 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 Court’s case‑law (see 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 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 and regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see paragraph 11 above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
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(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 11 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
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
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]
47699/19
08/08/2019
Artem Kamilyevich KHATYPOV
1990
SIZO-1 Komi Republic, IK-1 Komi Republic
06/05/2021 - 15/07/2021
11/11/2020 - 11/02/2021
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - On 24/05/2021 the applicant was placed in a metal cage while he participated in a court hearing by means of a video link (the complaint was introduced on 08/06/2021);
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - poor conditions of detention during transport by vans, trains on several occasions between 14/06/2019 -06/08/2020:
insufficient number of sleeping places, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
8,500
34096/20
04/06/2021
Dzharakhudzha Safarkhudzhayevich ABDULLOYEV
1987
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region
11/04/2019-18/02/2021
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
-
44448/20
05/10/2020
Artem Dmitriyevich PASICHENKO
1997
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
16/07/2020 - 16/01/2021
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport by train from Bryansk to St Petersburg from 29 to 30/06/2020; lack or insufficient quality of food; in the letter received by the Court on 16/03/2021 the applicant complains about transportation on 16/01/2021 (St Petersburg - Vologda by train), 27/01/2021 (Vologda - Kirov by train), 06/02/2021 (2 hours in a van and Kirov - Yekaterinburg by train) raising overcrowding, passive smoking, lack of heating and ventilation;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during court hearings at 224th Garrison Military Court during 30/06/2020 - 11/08/2020
8,500
47007/20
17/03/2021
Dmitriy Viktorovich LEBEDINTSEV
1975
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
19/02/2020- pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
-
52653/20
11/01/2021
Sergey Nikolayevich BUSHMANOV
1984
IZ-1 St. Petersburg, psychiatric hospital no. 6 of St Petersburg
25/03/2020 -
– 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 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - detention in a metal cage in the hearings from the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg between 25/03/2020 and 18/11/2020;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities;
Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - excessive length of pre‑trial detention from 23/03/2020 – pending as of 16/09/2022 (latest statement of appeal submitted was lodged on 25/09/2020)
9,750
55752/20
14/01/2021
Timur Amrailovich ALLAKHVERDIYEV
1991
IK-31 Komi Republic
20/04/2020-20/02/2021
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
-
9356/21
19/07/2021
Aleksey Vladimirovich TASKIN
1985
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
29/06/2019 – pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region, form 29/06/2016 to 17/03/2021, personal space 3.33 sq. m, 170 inmates in a brigade, 5 toilets,
bunk beds, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of privacy for toilet, no or restricted access to shower, overcrowding;
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 during transport
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, on numerous occasions from 17/03/2021 to 12/04/2021, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to potable water, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet
2,500
22252/21
14/04/2021
Artur Rafikovich RAGIMOV
1986
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region,
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
17/11/2006-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
-
30954/21
14/05/2021
Shakhban Sultanovich GERIMSULTANOV
1971
IK-25 Komi Republic
01/01/2020- 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
-
30974/21
14/05/2021
Abdurauf Ravshanovich SUVANOV
1990
IK-25 Komi Republic
16/09/2020- 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
-
30976/21
10/05/2021
Narkuzi Abdusattarovich ANARKULOV
1976
IK-25 Komi Republic
01/06/2019- 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
-
31272/21
26/05/2021
Asliddin Talabshoyevich NAZAROV
1988
IK-25 Komi Republic
2010 – 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
-
31584/21
24/07/2021
Oleg Yuryevich BOCHAROV
1981
IK-49 Komi Republic
18/08/2016 - 01/11/2021
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
-
32736/21
28/05/2021
Aleksey Viktorovich BOGDANOV
1974
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
26/06/2019 – pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Placement in a metal cage during the hearings (via video‑link) in Sol-Iletskiy and Leninskiy District Courts of Orenburg from 04/02/2021 to 15/07/2021;
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
8,500
34147/21
20/08/2021
Kirill Gennadyevich PERMINOV
1992
IK-25 Komi Republic
21/05/2018-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
-
43124/21
22/04/2021
Stanislav Olegovich MARTYNENKO
1984
IK-25 Komi Republic
18/12/2019 – 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
-
43535/21
09/08/2021
Vitaliy Gennadyevich SHMONIN
1987
IK-19 Komi Republic
09/08/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
-
43732/21
11/08/2021
Aleksandr Nikolayevich MILEKHIN
1995
IK-25 Komi Republic
17/12/2017-pending as of 16/09/2022
opposite-sex operators, disciplinary cells
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
-
43749/21
06/08/2021
Vitaliy Yuryevich SAFONOV
1982
IK-49 Komi Republic
02/03/2017-
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
-
43899/21
11/08/2021
Arayk Ashotovich TARPOSHYAN
1987
IK-25 Komi Republic
15/04/2018 - 27/03/2021
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
-
10311/22
18/03/2022
Sergey Nikolayevich MIGUNOV
1973
FKU Prison Krasnoyarsk Region
08/10/2021-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
-
10647/22
01/02/2022
Vadim Mikhaylovich ROZANOV
1977
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
18/05/2021 - 05/01/2022
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 and in respect of the inadequate conditions during transport;
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - multiple transfers between the remand prison and the courthouse between 15/05/2021 and 06/12/2021 in an overcrowded van. Transfers lasted 2 to 4 hours
1,000
10679/22
25/01/2022
Gamzat Umarovich ABDUSAMADOV
1991
IK-31 Komi Republic
11/05/2017-25/01/2022
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
-
11652/22
16/02/2022
Vasiliy Alekseyevich FRANCHUK
1987
IK-29 Kirov Region
October 2020 - September 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
-
11736/22
16/02/2022
Mikhail Andreyevich SEMYKIN
1990
IK-29 Kirov Region
03/08/2017-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
-
13219/22
09/02/2022
Oleg Olegovich LYUSHENKO
1988
IVS Vyshny Volochyok,
SIZO-1 Tver Region,
SIZO-1 Yaroslavl
10/12/2019- 08/11/2021
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities
-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.