THIRD SECTION
CASE OF VASILEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 25655/20 and 17 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vasilevskiy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
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 post-conviction detention facilities and about unavailability of an effective domestic remedy in this respect.
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.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 13 of the Convention6. The applicants complained about detention under permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities and about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 8
“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.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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 (1) 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) and (2) does not presuppose any balancing exercise or enable an individual to obtain a judicial review of the proportionality of his or her placement under permanent video surveillance to the vested interests in securing his or her privacy (ibid., § 108).
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 in post‑conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law” and that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints in that respect.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION10. 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.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gorlov and Others, cited above, with further references, § 120, 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention;Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
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
25655/20
16/12/2020
Vladimir Valeryevich VASILEVSKIY
1978
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
09/02/2019 - pending
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
47201/20
06/10/2020
Andrey Dmitriyevich OSIPOV
1998
IK-31 Komi Republic
27/01/2020 - 16/12/2020
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
10512/21
30/12/2020
Artem Aleksandrovich LUTSENKO
1998
IK-31 Komi Republic
27/09/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
11369/21
04/02/2021
Yevgeniy Vladimirovich IGUSHEV
1977
IK-25 Komi Republic
26/02/2020 - pending
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
11420/21
04/02/2021
Eduard Viktorovich BAKHONSKIY
1984
IK-1 Komi Republic,
IK-31 Komi Republic
19/07/2019 - 26/09/2020
26/09/2020 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance
12843/21
10/02/2021
Eduard Vasilyevich PODOROV
1977
IK-25 Komi Republic
13/08/2015 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
12847/21
10/02/2021
Sergey Aleksandrovich POCHEKUTOV
1983
IK-25 Komi Republic
15/04/2012 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
14240/21
25/02/2021
Aleksey Yuryevich SEVIZDRAL
1987
IK-25 Komi Republic
06/04/2017 - pending
opposite-sex operators
14919/21
09/02/2021
Dilovar Sharifovich ASOMUDINOV
1986
IK-25 Komi Republic
31/07/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators
15317/21
03/03/2021
Maksim Alekseyevich SAVIN
1978
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
01/09/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators
16120/21
07/03/2021
Maksim Aleksandrovich LETNIKOV
1988
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
31/07/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators
17037/21
12/03/2021
Ivan Viktorovich ANASHKIN
1983
IK-25 Komi Republic
28/01/2016 - pending
opposite-sex operators
17172/21
26/02/2021
Mikhail Yuryevich SHAPOVAL
1992
IK-25 Komi Republic
since 2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
17182/21
24/02/2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich BOLDYREV
1987
IK-25 Komi Region
23/11/2015 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
17874/21
14/03/2021
Aleksey Mikhaylovich VOYEVODIN
1984
IK-18 Yamalo‑Nenetskiy Region
30/07/2017 - 16/08/2021
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
19703/21
20/04/2021
Mukhamed Volodevich ZHEMUKHOV
1986
IK-25 Komi Republic
10/07/2014 - pending
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
25231/21
09/04/2021
Nikolay Alekseyevich PUGAREVICH
1990
IK-25 Komi Republic
12/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
25703/21
20/04/2021
Denis Nikolayevich ANDRIYEVSKIY
1991
IK-25 Komi Republic
23/01/2017 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room