THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ZOKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 3494/17 and 24 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zokirov 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 8 April 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 having been subjected to permanent video surveillance in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and about unavailability of an effective domestic remedy in this respect.
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 ARTICLES 8 AND 13 of the Convention
6. The applicants complained about detention under permanent video surveillance in pre-trial or 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 when confined to their cells in pre-trial and 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.REMAINING COMPLAINTS
10. In application no. 19886/19, the applicant also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about conditions of his detention in a correctional colony.
11. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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 complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance in the applicants’ cells during their detention in pre-trial and post-conviction facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect admissible, and the remainder of application no. 19886/19 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints 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 29 April 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 Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention
(permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities and
lack of an effective remedy in that respect)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Period of detention
Specific circumstances
3494/17
25/11/2016
Rustam Shamsidinovich ZOKIROV
1977
Gavrilitsa Irina Aleksandrovna
Krasnoyarsk
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region
04/03/2010 - 19/07/2016
surveillance by female operators
33666/17
29/09/2017
Aleksandr Viktorovich YURCHENKO
1969
IK-34 OIK-36 Krasnoyarsk Region
1/06/2015 - pending
opposite-sex operators
73556/17
01/10/2017
Vadim Viktorovich KOTOV
1977
Golub Olga Viktorovna
Suzemka
IK-1 Bryansk Region
14/10/2015 - 12/07/2017
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
491/18
20/12/2017
Sergey Aleksandrovich BENEDYCHUK
1962
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region,
LIU-37 Krasnoyarsk Region,
LIU-32 Krasnoyarsk Region
17/10/2013 - 20/06/2017
detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
4915/18
28/12/2017
Mikhail Andreyevich POPOV
1987
IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region
29/11/2016 - 02/08/2017
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance
14240/18
13/03/2018
Bulat Insanbekovich TATAYEV
1974
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region
07/11/2016 - 27/09/2017
opposite-sex operators
16198/18
17/03/2018
Stanislav Vasilyevich CHERNOV
1984
IK-17 and IK-15 Krasnoyarsk Region
06/03/2012 - 18/09/2017
opposite-sex operators
17877/18
28/03/2018
Ivan Anatolyevich ALEMPIADIN
1984
Prison no. 2 Krasnoyarsk Region
07/07/2017 - 28/11/2017
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
30314/18
07/06/2018
Pavel Leonidovich GONCHAROV
1988
Egle Denis Sergeyevich
Krasnoyarsk
SIZO-1 Chita and PFRSI in IK-5 Chita Zabaykalskiy Region
29/05/2014 - 21/12/2017
31/07/2018 - 22/02/2019
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
30718/18
18/09/2018
Oleg Timofeyevich LUKYANOV
1965
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
14/02/2013 - 31/08/2018
opposite-sex operators
33974/18
08/02/2018
Maksim Vladimirovich GURYANOV
1986
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region
23/10/2008 - 11/08/2017
opposite-sex operators
43162/18
13/08/2018
Nurbiy Skhatbiyevich NAGOYEV
1979
IZ-1 Krasnoyarsk Region,
IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
01/12/2006 - 23/11/2018
opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
50749/18
08/10/2018
Viktor Pavlovich TENYATNIKOV
1965
IZ-5 Krasnoyarsk Region,
IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region
05/06/2017 - 09/04/2018
09/04/2018 - 26/04/2018
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
51976/18
25/01/2019
Andrey Anatolyevich SHESTAKOV
1968
IZ-2 Murmansk Region
27/07/2018 - 10/12/2018
detention in different cells with video surveillance
52014/18
12/10/2018
Vladimir Yuryevich NEMCHENKO
1989
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
16/03/2018 - 16/06/2018
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
12252/19
28/01/2019
Aleksey Aleksandrovich FEDOTOV
1988
Prison Krasnoyarsk Region
19/05/2016 - pending
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
13556/19
28/08/2019
Aleksey Vladimirovich PRISHVA
1984
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region
15/01/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators
14336/19
15/02/2019
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KIRYUKHIN
1984
IZ-24/1 Krasnoyarsk Region
11/01/2016 - 05/09/2018
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
16966/19
12/04/2019
Vladislav Nikolayevich RUZHOVICH
1975
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region brigade no. 7,
IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region assembly cell and cell no. 9 SHIZO
18/01/2019 - pending
opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room
19886/19
25/10/2017
Vyacheslav Anatolyevich CHERNYAYEV
1966
IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region
14/02/2013 - 09/08/2017
opposite-sex operators
37974/19
13/09/2019
Sergey Sergeyevich KHUSAINOV
1998
IK-31 Krasnoyarsk Region,
IK-43 Krasnoyarsk Region
28/03/2019 - 28/09/2019
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance
38535/19
19/06/2019
Vladimir Mikhaylovich MARKIN
1972
OIK-40 KP-39 Krasnoyarsk Region
08/06/2018 - 26/02/2019
detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators
2084/20
15/12/2019
Eduard Petrovich PYATKEVICH
1972
Settlement colony no. 6 Adygeya Republic
25/10/2018 - 06/02/2020
detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
14478/20
03/03/2020
Anna Dmitriyevna KHARITONOVA
1982
Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich
Syktyvkar
IK-31 Komi Republic
10/10/2019-25/10/2019
opposite-sex operators
27964/20
08/04/2020
Vsevolod Sergeyevich LOSEV
1987
Tretyak Tatyana Aleksandrovna
Gelendzhik
IVS Gelendzhik
more than 210 days between 23/11/2016 and 01/11/2019 (the applicant was regularly transferred to IVS)
video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy