THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SUKHANSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 14125/18 and 5 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 Sukhanskiy 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. They 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 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, which, in so far as relevant, 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Gorlov and Others, cited above).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, Gorlov and Others and Svinarenko and Slyadnev, both cited above), 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 other complaints under the 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.
{signature_p_2}
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]
14125/18
13/03/2018
Maksim Sergeyevich SUKHANSKIY
1981
Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna
Krasnoyarsk
SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk
24/04/2017 - 25/12/2017
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in court hearings before Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, with the final decision being taken on 18/09/2017
7,500
47995/18
17/09/2018
Denis Vladimirovich SAFONOV
1992
SIZO-1 / IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
20/10/2017 - 29/03/2018
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 in court hearings in the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk / 20/02/2018
7,500
48681/18
11/12/2018
Aleksandr Andreyevich SIDORENKO
1982
PFRSI in IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
06/06/2018 - 07/11/2018
opposite-sex operators
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in metal cages during court hearings and permanent video surveillance in detention,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in the Sverdlovsk District Court of Krasnoyarsk; the most recent occasion during the trial hearing on 30/07/2018
7,500
47770/19
05/08/2019
Fenyuye CHEN
1960
Urlashov Aleksey Mikhaylovich
St Petersburg
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
30/05/2018
-
08/05/2019
opposite-sex operators
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage on 08/04/2019 in SIZO-1 St Petersburg during the appeal hearing at the St Petersburg City Court
7,500
63051/19
27/11/2019
Sergey Vladimirovich TSYKHNO
1987
Koshev Vladimir Vladimirovich
Stavropol
IZ-26/2 Pyatigorsk, Stavropol Region
21/02/2019 – 16/08/2019
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,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage during the hearing of 18/06/2019 in the Stavropol Region Court (the applicant participated via video conference)
7,500
16701/20
20/03/2020
Maksim Anatolyevich DENISEVICH
1989
Konakov Andrey Pavlovich
St Petersburg
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
31/05/2019 - 21/07/2020
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 and confinement in a metal cage during court hearings,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in a metal cage in court hearings before the Kolpinskiy District Court of St Petersburg
7,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy