THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KOSOUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 60283/17 and 3 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 Kosourov 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 (see the appended table).
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, in so far as relevant, 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 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages during court hearings, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of a speedy review of detention matters and related to poor conditions of detention during transport, and Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of permanent video surveillance of detainees).APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Svinarenko and Slyadnev and Gorlov and Others, both cited above, and 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.
13. 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;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]
60283/17
11/08/2017
Ivan Yuryevich KOSOUROV
1985
Pershin Aleksey Vladimirovich
Moscow
IZ-2 Moscow
20/02/2014 – pending (no information provided by the parties regarding the possible end date)
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of the Moscow City Court of 30/01/2017 was examined on 27/06/2017 by the Moscow City Court.
500
2553/20
19/12/2019
Andrey Aleksandrovich GLUKHIKH
1985
IZ-1 St Petersburg
10/08/2018 – pending
detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of transport, permanent video surveillance and confinement in a cage,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage or glass cabins in the courtrooms of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg and Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region in the course of the hearings conducted between 17/02/2018 - 05/12/2019,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inhuman conditions of transport in a van, transit cell between 16/02/2018-03/12/2019 with <0.5 m² per inmate, passive smoking, overcrowding, no safety belts in a van, lack or inadequate furniture, lack of fresh air, no ventilation.
8,500
2568/20
24/12/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich DOBROLETOV
1982
Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich
St Petersburg
IZ-1 St Petersburg
13/04/2019 - 14/11/2019
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,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a cage in the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg in the hearings between 20/11/2018 and 14/11/2019,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transfers in a van and detention in transit cells 20/11/2018 - 14/11/2019 overcrowding, 0.2 sq. m per person, passive smoking, lack of fresh air, lack or insufficient quantity of food, inadequate temperature, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to toilet.
8,500
3123/20
19/12/2019
Anatoliy Viktorovich SKORNYAKOV
1988
IZ-1 St Petersburg
17/02/2018 - pending
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - decision of Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg of 13/08/2019, the applicant appealed on 19/08/2019, still no appeal decision as of 28/11/2019, the date of the appeal hearing is unknown,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transport by prison van from the detention facility to the courthouse from 16/02/2018 and on-going;
overcrowding.
1,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy