European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF PUZANOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 26895/14 and 2 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 Puzanov 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 (nos. 26895/14, 7836/15 and 25574/17) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 May 2014, 19 January 2015 and 31 January 2017, respectively, by a Russian national, Igor Fridrikhovich Puzanov, born in 1975 and currently in detention.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applications and their relevant details are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicant complained of different aspects relating to his detention and, in particular, about permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facility.

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 8 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicant complained of the permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 8 § 1

“1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

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.”

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 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).

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 this complaint. It considers, regard being had to the case-law cited above, that in the instant case the placement of the applicant under permanent video surveillance when confined to his cell in post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”.

9.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.

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

10.  The applicant further complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about poor conditions of his transportation on multiple occasions since 2016, as well as about his placement in a metal cage (see 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in this regard, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 79, ECHR 2014 (extracts), related to placement in a metal cage in court hearings).

IV.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

11.  Finally, the applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about another aspect of his detention, that is his ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections to the State Duma, as well as under Article 3 of the Convention about his past stays in poor conditions of detention in different pre-trial detention centres. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine neither the admissibility nor the merits of the remaining complaints (see, among many others, Zhirkova and others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 16203/13 and 4 others, § 48, 30 March 2021, with further references).

V.    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, as well as to the previous awards made to Mr Puzanov (see, for instance, Tyurin and Others v. Russia (dec) [Committee], no. 53555/14, 14 June 2018, and Nikolayev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 31113/15 and 7 others, 26 July 2018), the Court does not find it necessary to make any award of just satisfaction in the present case (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 44363/14 etc., § 12, 4 June 2020). The finding of violations of the Convention will constitute sufficient just satisfaction to the applicant in the present case.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the complaint concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints lodged under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 3 of the Convention;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5.      Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

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)