European Court of Human Rights

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF TYURIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 32695/14 and 8 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

9 February 2023

 

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

In the case of Tyurin and Others v. Russia,

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

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Ioannis Ktistakis,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2023,

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. Some 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.     the government’s request to strike out applications nos.  68851/17 and 5978/19

As regards applications nos. 68851/17 and 5978/19, 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.

6.  The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

7.  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 an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

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

9.  Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount 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 part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

10.  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).

11.  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).

12.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out applications nos. 68851/17 and 5978/19 in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint.

III.  decision to strike out applications

13.  As regards applications nos. 42647/16, 18607/18 and 27531/21, in the part concerning conditions of the applicants’ post-conviction detention in breach of national legislation or international agreements of the Russian Federation, the Court is of the view that there is no longer any justification for examining those complaints for the reasons set out below.

14.  The Court notes that, as matters stand, the material facts complained of by the applicants have ceased to exist. They are no longer held in correctional facilities in respect of which the complaints have been lodged. It further notes that it was open to the applicants to make resort to a new compensatory remedy, introduced by the Russian Federation on 27 January 2020, in respect of their complaints concerning the conditions of detention in breach of national legislation (see Shmelev and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 41743/17 and 16 others, 17 March 2020).

15.  Regard being had to its earlier findings that the said remedy presents, in principle, an adequate and effective avenue for redress and offers reasonable prospects of success (ibid., § 54), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of those complaints under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

16.  Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.

IV.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention

17.  The applicants complained 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.

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.

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

21.  Some 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, §§ 101-10, concerning lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about placement of detainees under permanent video surveillance).

VI.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

22.  The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

23.  The Court has examined the applications 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.

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

VII.           APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

25.  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.”

26.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gorlov and Others, cited above), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations in respect of the applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (applications nos. 68851/17 and 5978/19) concerning conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein and decides to strike out this part of the two applications of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

3.      Decides to strike applications nos. 42647/16, 18607/18 and 27531/21 out of its list of cases in the part concerning conditions of the applicants’ post‑conviction detention;

4.      Declares the complaints concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or 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 the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

5.      Holds that these complaints 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;

6.      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);

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2023, 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)