European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MALYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 1011/14 and 3 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 December 2021

 

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

In the case of Malygin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Peeter Roosma, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 November 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 the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. They also complained about poor conditions of transport and 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 article 3 of the convention and THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT the APPLICATIONs

6.  The Government submitted unilateral declarations whereby they acknowledged that the applicants had been transported in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that they had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government offered to pay each of the applicants 1,000 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

7.  Mr Kuzmin (application no. 16032/19) accepted the Government’s proposal. The Court has not received a response from other applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

A.    Application no. 16032/19 by Mr Kuzmin

8.  In the light of Mr Kuzmin’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the parties may be considered to have reached a friendly settlement.

9.  The Court takes note of the friendly settlement agreement. It is satisfied that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of application no. 16032/19 in that part.

10.  It is hence appropriate to strike the case out of the Court’s list in the part covered by the friendly settlement.

B.    Remaining applications

11.  As regards the remaining applications, the Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

12.  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to inadequate conditions of detention during transport (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012).

13.  Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amounts of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the relevant parts of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

14.  In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

15.  Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

16.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out the remaining applications in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint.

III.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention

17.  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, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“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.”

18.  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).

19.  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”.

20.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

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

21.  The applicants 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 Gorlov and Others, cited above, §§ 106-10, concerning lack of an effective remedy for the complaint about a permanent video surveillance). As regards application no. 1011/14, the Court also concludes that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 5 others, §§ 139-45, 17 January 2012).

V.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22.  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.”

23.  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), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike the part of application no. 16032/19 in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention and the part of the remaining applications in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, insofar as they relate to the conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy in this regard, out of its list of cases;

3.      Declares the remaining part of the applications admissible;

4.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities;

5.      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);

6.      Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                                                    Peeter Roosma
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)