Communicated on 30 August 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 28971/10
Igor Vladimirovich CHERTOV against Russia
and 26 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern conditions of the applicants’ detention and constant video surveillance of the applicants by means of closed-circuit television cameras installed in their prison cells.
COMMON QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the material conditions of the applicants’ detention in so far as applicable (see Appendix)?
2. Were the applicants subjected to constant video surveillance whilst in detention? If so, did that measure constitute an interference with their private life? If so, was it justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was the interference “prescribed by law”?
(b) If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
(c) If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims? In particular, could those aims be achieved by using less intrusive means?
The periods of the applicants’ detention and the facilities in which they were held are listed in the Appendix.
3. Did the applicants dispose of effective domestic remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention for their complaints about material conditions of their detention, about video surveillance in detention and their other complaints listed in the Appendix? The Government are invited to illustrate the practical effectiveness of those remedies with examples of case-law of the domestic courts.
QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS
1. Applications nos. 68027/10, 50796/12, 11025/15 and 13141/15
Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ solitary confinement? The periods of the applicants’ solitary detention and the facilities in which they were held are listed in the Appendix.
2. Application no. 68027/10
Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s transportation to court hearings held in the period from 31 May 2010 to 3 February 2011?
3. Applications nos. 45508/13, 1485/14, 1643/14, 3337/14 and 4304/15
Were the applicants subjected to strip searches in detention? If so, how often? Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on that account? In particular, were the strip searches justified and were they carried out in an appropriate manner with due respect for human dignity and a legitimate purpose (see Karwowski v. Poland, no. 29869/13, §§ 33-43, 19 April 2016)?
4. Applications nos. 68027/10, 11025/15 and 13141/15
1. Was the length of the applicants’ detention on remand in the periods listed in the Appendix in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the applicants’ appeals against the detention orders listed in the Appendix examined “speedily”, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009)?
5. Application no. 34780/14
1. Was there a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure the applicant’s participation in the hearings in his civil cases ended with the decisions delivered by the Tyumen Regional Court on 5 March, 24 September and 12 November 2014?
6. Applications nos. 74270/13 and 484/14
1. Does the applicants’ detention in penitentiary facilities located outside their home regions give rise to a “continuing situation” for the purposes of calculating the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Have the applicants complied with the six-month rule in relation to their respective complaints under Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Was there an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in view of their transfer from their home towns, to remote detention facilities, and the effect it had on the applicants’ contacts with members of their families? If so, did the interference in question fulfil the criteria set out in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 835-51, 25 July 2013)? In this connection,
(a) having regard to the terms of Article 73 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Sentences (“CES”), was the interference in question “in accordance with the law”?
(b) did it pursue one or more legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
(c) was it “necessary” for the pursuit of such an aim, in other words, supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and proportionate?
More specifically, did the domestic authorities carry out a balancing exercise to assess the proportionality of the impugned transfers to the aims sought? Does Article 81 of the CES provide for the possibility of carrying out such a balancing exercise prior to or after a detainee’s transfer to a certain facility?
APPENDIX
List of applications
1.
28971/10
CHERTOV v. Russia
2.
68027/10
SOKOLOV v. Russia
3.
50587/11
GRIGORYEV v. Russia
4.
50796/12
GALSTYAN v. Russia
5.
20028/13
ANOSHIN v. Russia
6.
45508/13
YUDIN v. Russia
7.
57843/13
MARKOV v. Russia
8.
74270/13
ZARUBIN v. Russia
9.
484/14
ESKINDAROV v. Russia
10.
1485/14
ZAYRIVOV v. Russia
11.
1643/14
ZHENTLIYEV v. Russia
12.
3337/14
SOYAN v. Russia
13.
9082/14
SHEVCHENKO v. Russia
14.
10488/14
SINELNIKOV v. Russia
15.
12922/14
CHUDNOVSKIY v. Russia
16.
15782/14
GAVSHIN v. Russia
17.
25147/14
SABLIN v. Russia
18.
34780/14
TIKHOMIROV v. Russia
19.
35627/14
PETROV v. Russia
20.
50021/14
KONONENKO v. Russia
21.
4304/15
VASIN v. Russia
22.
11025/15
SEMENOV v. Russia
23.
13141/15
PENKIN v. Russia
24.
36415/15
SPIRIN v. Russia
25.
3071/16
KOCHUGOV v. Russia
26.
3336/16
YELOVSKIY v. Russia
27.
6475/16
KRASNIKOV v. Russia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy