THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BUBNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 52138/17 and 8 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 June 2021

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

In the case of Bubnov and Others v. Russia ,

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

Darian Pavli, President, Dmitry Dedov , Peeter Roosma , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 20 May 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 applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4 . The applicant s 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

5 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6 . 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 , which read s 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.”

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 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”.

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

10 . Some applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities (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 a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Gorlov and Others , cited above, §§ 106-10) .

11 . In application no. 1929/18, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 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, this complaint do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of application no. 1929/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

13 . 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.”

14 . 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,

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2021 , 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 )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Year of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Detention facility

Period of detention

Specific circumstances

Other complaints under

well-established case-law

52138/17

14/06/2017

Konstantin Viktorovich BUBNOV

1984IZ-1 Khabarovsk Region

05/02/2015 -18/01/2017

opposite-sex operators

77557/17

13/09/2017

Aleksey Borisovich YEFANOV

1980IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

from 19/12/2009 to 05/02/2019

opposite-sex operators

1929/18

25/08/2019

Vyacheslav Valeryevich DATSIK

1980Fedorkov Andrey Aleksandrovich

St Petersburg

SIZO-1 St Petersburg

15/12/2017 - 26/02/2019

detention in different cells with video surveillance

15846/18

01/03/2018

Mikhail Anatolyevich SHCHERBININ

1985IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region

17/10/2013 - 11/10/2017

detention in different cells with video surveillance

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities -

20488/18

14/07/2020

Andrey Viktorovich LOZHKIN

1985IZ-1 Sverdlovsk Region,

IK-6 Khabarovsk Region

from 05/01/2018 to 10/01/2018

pending as of 01/02/2018 (IK-6)

opposite-sex operators

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities -

49312/18

02/10/2018

Vitaliy Sergeyevich VLASKIN

1984IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

17/05/2017 - pending

opposite-sex operators

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities -

25061/20

19/05/2020

Vladimir Alekseyevich ALEKSEYEV

1999IK-31 Komi Republic

26/12/2019 - pending

opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities -

27107/20

01/06/2020

Nikolay Nikolayevich GORBUNOV

1966IK-21 Arkhangelsk Region

25/04/2020 - 20/05/2020 (detention in a disciplinary cell)

17/06/2020 - 02/07/2020 (detention in a disciplinary cell)

opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities -

36184/20

29/07/2020

Umrbek Durdiyevich IBRAGIMOV

1992IK-6 Khabarovsk Region

26/09/2017 - pending