THIRD SECTION
CASE OF URAZALIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 30580/21 and 30 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Urazalin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 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. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol No. 1, 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 and of Protocol No. 1 in the light of its well-established case-law (see 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; 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; Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities; Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013, concerning prisoners’ right to vote).
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. 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. 39075/21 and 39208/21) 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 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. 37902/21, 39075/21, 39208/21, 54982/21 and 5083/22.
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 complaints under Article 8 of the Convention 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 (see the appended table) admissible and finds that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms;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 Protocol 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 Article 8 of the Convention; Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants in applications nos. 37902/21, 39075/21, 39208/21, 54982/21 and 5083/22, 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 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]
30580/21
17/05/2021
Ikhtiyar Maratovich URAZALIN
1971
Kukharev Aleksandr Vladimirovich
Moscow
SIZO-2 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
28/05/2020 - 17/11/2020
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
30856/21
26/05/2021
Magomed-Rashid Mukharbekovich GAZIKOV
1978
IK-31 Komi Republic
05/02/2020 -25/02/2021
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
30857/21
28/05/2021
Oleg Aleksandrovich PODUSHKA
1991
IK-25 Komi Republic
26/12/2016 – 17/04/2022
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
37223/21
09/07/2021
Denis Vasilyevich MOLCHANOV
1988
IK-25 Komi Republic
February 2020 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
37340/21
07/07/2021
Aleksey Yevgenyevich LOSHMANOV
1981
IK-29 Kirov Region
24/12/2020 – 24/06/2022
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
37364/21
07/07/2021
Oleg Aleksandrovich FEOKTISTOV
1983
SIZO-1 Smolensk Region
18/11/2018 - 15/02/2021
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
37642/21
30/06/2021
Aleksey Veniaminovich RASTVOROV
1982
IK-25 Komi Republic
multiple placements (33) in punishment cells between 06/08/2018 and 18/04/2021, periods of placement from 5 to 15 days
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.
37902/21
22/07/2021
Igor Sergeyevich BUSHUYEV
1985
Yevsyunin Aleksey Konstantinovich
Moscow
SIZO-4 Moscow
10/10/2018 – pending as of 22/07/2021
opposite-sex operators
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 - during 07/07/2020 - 21/06/2021, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;
failure to conduct the proceedings diligently leading to excessive length of detention on remand
1,300
39075/21
27/08/2021
Yuliy Alekseyevich NESTEROV
1996
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
23/07/2020 -22/01/2022
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,
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Placement in a metal cage in the courtroom of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, between 23/07/2020 and 29/07/2021
7,500
39208/21
12/07/2021
Aleksandr Nikolayevich CHURAKOV
1974
SIZO-1 St Petersburg
21/07/2018 – 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 - The applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearings (in a trial court as well as via video-link) in the Nevskiy Disctrict Court of St Petersburg, St Petersburg City Court from 18/12/2019 to 12/03/2021,
Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - inability to have long-term family visits in SIZO-1 St Petersburg,
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of refusals to have long-term family visits,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of detention during transport between the remand prison and courthouse pending criminal proceedings (39 times) between 18/12/2019 and 12/03/2021- placement in a single occupancy cell in a prison van; transfers lasted from 1 to 3 hours
9,750
42046/21
27/09/2021
Viktor Aleksandrovich MYSIN
1978
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
01/04/2021 - 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
42211/21
06/08/2021
Murat Kachakovich AKAVOV
1968
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
30/10/2011- 15/05/2022
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
42315/21
04/08/2021
Nikolay Anatolyevich PASHKEYEV
1989
IK-25 Komi Republic
24/12/2020 – 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
50358/21
20/09/2021
Vitaliy Vladimirovich KABANOV
1979
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
25/05/2018 – 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
50565/21
29/09/2021
Andrey Vyacheslavovich FEDORENKO
1987
IK-25 Komi Republic
07/07/2017 - 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
53110/21
06/10/2021
Aleksandr Pavlovich KRUTIKHIN
1982
IK-25 Komi Republic
23/07/2017 – 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
54537/21
14/10/2021
Stepan Leonidovich PALKIN
1988
IK-25 Komi Republic
31/01/2010 – 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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
54982/21
27/09/2021
Maksim Yevgenyevich BUZOV
1987
Settlement colony no. 10 Irkutsk Region
23/09/2021 – 07/01/2022
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 - transfers by van between the colony and workplace, 22/09/2021-23/09/2021, passive smoking, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding
1,000
55397/21
24/10/2021
Ruslan Nikolayevich VASILYEV
1986
IK-24 Komi Republic
12/08/2019 -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
56223/21
22/01/2022
Aleksey Yevgenyevich ARZYUTOV
IK-25 Komi Republic
25/11/2020 – 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. 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
56224/21
13/12/2021
Demyan Aleksandrovich SHEPELEV
1989
IZ-3 Komi Republic
27/06/21-17/07/2021
23/07/2021-29/07/2021
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
508/22
24/11/2021
Aleksandr Pavlovich BONDARENKO
1986
SIZO-3 Komi Republic
21/07/2018 - 09/07/2021
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,
Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - inability to vote in elections of members of the State Duma (Parliament) in September 2021
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
1721/22
09/01/2022
Andrey Anatolyevich SHESTERNIN
1966
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
09/09/2019 – 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
1828/22
30/08/2021
Vladimir Vasilyevich IVANOV
1957
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
02/10/2019 -03/03/2021
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
Finding of a violation will constitute sufficient just satisfaction
1829/22
07/12/2021
Andrey Alekseyevich SEMENOV
1980
IK-8 Komi Republic
11/12/2020 – 30/01/2022
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
2244/22
30/11/2021
Sergey Vasilyevich MARTYSHOV
1983
IZ-3 Belgorod Region
17/10/2019 - 22/07/2021
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
2932/22
03/12/2021
Vladimir Ivanovich GOLBAN
1962
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
17/12/2020 – 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
3986/22
27/04/2022
Zafar Shodiyevich KURBONOV
1980
IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
06/10/2016 – 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
5083/22
27/12/2021
Viktor Gennadyevich BARDAKOV
1979
IK-8 Komi Republic
17/05/2017 – 18/02/2022
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 and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train, transit cell, 24/07/2021-03/08/2021, 0.32-0.5 sq. m, overcrowding, lack or inadequate furniture, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack of fresh air, lack of privacy for toilet
1,000
5709/22
20/12/2021
Dmitriy Vyacheslavovich BURDYKO
1981
FKU LIU-32 Krasnoyarsk Region
30/04/2021 – 30/12/2021
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
8073/22
18/01/2022
Dmitriy Dmitriyevich SAVVIN
1986
UK-49 Komi Republic
April 2019 – 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
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.