Search
document

CASE OF LYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 27637/17, 28600/17, 32206/17, 54717/17, 58542/17, 77564/17, 33272/18, 3844/19, 5306/19, 19285/20, 24... • ECHR ID: 001-209449

Document date: April 29, 2021

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

CASE OF LYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Doc ref: 27637/17, 28600/17, 32206/17, 54717/17, 58542/17, 77564/17, 33272/18, 3844/19, 5306/19, 19285/20, 24... • ECHR ID: 001-209449

Document date: April 29, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF LYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

( Application s no s . 27637/17 and 11 others –

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

29 April 2021

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

In the case of Lygin 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 8 April 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 .

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 about detention under permanent video surveillance in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities. These complaints fall under Article 8 of the Convention , which reads, in so far as relevant, 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 . 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.”

11 . 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, 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 29 April 2021 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

{signature_p_2}

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

27637/17

16/02/2017

(3 applicants)

Sergey Aleksandrovich LYGIN

1971Valentin Vladimirovich AKSENOV

1968Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich KOZLOV

1984IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

Lygin : from 27/02/2015 - pending

Aksenov : from 12/09/2013 to 11/09/2018

Kozlov: from 25/05/2015 - pending

detention in different cells with video surveillance,

opposite-sex operators

28600/17

22/03/2017

Denis Valeryevich NASLEDNIKOV

1981IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

30/04/2014 - 04/10/2018

detention in different cells with video surveillance

32206/17

06/10/2017

Aleksandr Valeryevich NEKHLEBOV

1985IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region

30/12/2013 - 15/06/2017

detention in different cells with video surveillance,

opposite-sex operators

54717/17

19/07/2017

Yelena Aleksandrovna YEREMINA

1961IVS in Rubtsovsk

17/03/2016 -16/02/2017 (several occasions for 84 total days)

opposite-sex operators

58542/17

03/07/2017

Aleksandr Sergeyevich LEBEDEV

1977Tolmacheva Mariya Valeryevna

Saransk

IZ-1 Mordovi y a Republic

September 2011 - 01/02/2017

opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance

77564/17

06/02/2018

Aleksandr Vladimirovich ZAUSHKIN

1971IK-7 Bashkortostan Republic

31/07/2017 - 19/08/2017

video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room

33272/18

20/10/2017

Ruslan Ivanovich NAZIMOV

1987SIZO-1 Buryatiya Republic

14/11/2016 - 07/05/2017

opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance

3844/19

15/12/2018

Aleksey Alekseyevich IVANOV

1976IK-29 Kirov Region

11/03/2015 - 26/09/2018

opposite-sex operators

5306/19

31/12/2018

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich ANDROSOV

1978OIK-40 LIU-37 Krasnoyarsk Region

24/04/2018 - 10/07/2018

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

19285/20

18/03/2020

Ivan Igorevich ASTASHIN

1992IK-15 Krasnoyarsk Region

10/04/2014 - 19/09/2019

opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance

24355/20

29/05/2020

Timur Arongulovich TEMIROV

1970IK-6 Khabarovsk Region

09/02/2018 - pending

detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators

25058/20

26/05/2020

Sergey Anatolyevich SEMEGIN

1987IK-31 Komi Republic

23/12/2019 - pending

opposite-sex operators

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant