European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ZVEREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 26363/18 and 2 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

7 July 2022

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zverev 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 16 June 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 the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER 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.

II.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 13 of the Convention

6.  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 when confined 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.

III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

10.  Mr Zverev (application no. 26363/18) and Mr Nemtsev (application no. 32904/19) 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of detention during transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, §§ 53-56, 2 June 2020, concerning routine handcuffing of prisoners serving a life sentence).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11.  Mr Polichev (application no. 29735/18) also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

12.  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.

13.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  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, and Shlykov and Others v. Russia, nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 109-11, 19 January 2021, 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), the Court considers that the finding of a violation in respect of the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

16.  As to the other complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention lodged by Mr Nemtsev (application no. 32904/19, see the appended table) about inhumane conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect, having taken into account the previous awards made to the applicant in earlier cases (see, in particular, Nemtsev and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 22722/14 and 6 others, 29 March 2018; and Gusev and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 28348/13 and 5 others, 4 May 2017), the Court also considers it reasonable not to make any award to the applicant in the present case (compare Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 44363/14 and 2 others, §§ 11-13, 4 June 2020).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect and the other complaints under well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 29735/18 inadmissible;

3.      Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect;

4.      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);

5.      Holds that the finding of a violation is in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 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)