Communicated on 15 October 2020 Published on 2 November 2020

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 28840/12 and 61802/14 Kirill Aleksandrovich VOZHDAYEV against Russia and Kirill Aleksandrovich VOZHDAYEV and Others against Russia lodged on 9 May 2012 and 13 August 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Mr Kirill Aleksandrovich Vozhdayev , Mr Zurab Rezoyevich Shavdiya and Mr German Mikhaylovich Vyatskiy , Russian nationals, who were born in 1992, 1987 and 1990, respectively. The applicants are detained in Lipetsk, Morshansk and Tver , respectively. They are represented before the Court by Ms M.N. Sernovets , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 21 December 2011 an investigator of the Investigation Department in Moscow opened a criminal case into a robbery against unidentified persons.

On 26 December 2011 the investigator summoned Mr Vozhdayev for an interview as a witness. According to Mr Vozhdayev , he did not receive a notification.

On 18 January 2012 the investigator ruled to establish Mr Vozhdayev ’ s whereabouts and ordered his compulsory attendance ( “ привод ”) for an interview.

It follows from the case-file that on 10 February 2012 Mr Vozhdayev ’ s name was registered in the so-called “Surveillance Database” (“ Сторожевой контроль ”). The Database contains information about persons allegedly involved in extremist activities. Whenever a person mentioned in the database purchases a train or aeroplane ticket the Interior Department of Transport receives an automatic notification (see Shimovolos v. Russia , no. 30194/09, § 7, 21 June 2011). The creation and maintenance of the Database are regulated by the ministerial orders (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).

On 8 March 2012 at about 9 p.m. Mr Vozhdayev arrived to Moscow airport “Domodedovo”. During the identity check-up at the airport, a police officer seized his passport and escorted him to a police office located at the airport. About an hour later Mr Vozhdayev was taken to a police station in Moscow.

On 11 March 2012 Mr Vozhdayev was charged with robbery.

On an unspecified date between March and July 2012 Mr Vozhdayev learned that his name had been registered in the “Surveillance Database”.

On 29 August 2012 and 30 August 2012 police officers arrested Mr Shavdiya and Mr Vyatskiy .

In May 2013 the criminal case against the applicants into the robbery was transferred to Perovskiy District Court for trial.

On 20 August 2013 the Perovskiy District Court in Moscow convicted the applicants.

On 20 February 2014 from 1 to 7 p.m. the Moscow City Court examined the applicants ’ appeal against the conviction judgment. The applicants participated in the hearing by means of a video link from remand prison no. 4, where they were confined in a metal cage. The cage was measuring 1 ,5 sq.m . and had one bench specified for two persons.

On 20 November 2014 Mr Vozhdayev requested the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to carry out an inquiry into the implementation of the orders nos. 980, 1070 and 47 of the Ministry of the Interior on “Surveillance Database” (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), which remained unpublished.

On 25 December 2014 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office informed Mr Vozhdayev that orders nos. 980 and 1070 regulated creation and maintenance of information databases and their registration with the Ministry of Justice and publication were not required. Mr Vozhdayev was also informed that order no. 47, to which the Court had referred in its judgment Shimovolos v. Russia (no. 30194/09, 21 June 2011), was no longer in force.

On an unspecified date Mr Vozhdayev complained to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court about the investigator ’ s decision to register his name in the “Surveillance Database”.

On 23 January 2015 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court rejected Mr Vozhdayev ’ s complaint, referring to his conviction of 20 August 2013 and noting that his complaint could not be examined on the merits.

The relevant provisions governing the police databases are summarised in Shimovolos v. Russia , no. 30194/09, §§ 40-42, 21 June 2011.

The relevant provisions regarding the use of metal cages in courtrooms, see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants (no. 61802/14) complain under Article 3 of the Convention about their confinement on 20 February 2014 in a metal cage in the remand prison during their participation by means of a video link in the appeal proceedings.

Mr Vozhdayev (no. 28840/12) complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the inclusion of his name in the “Surveillance Database” and the consequent collection of his personal data by the police. He alleges that there was no reason to register his name in the database as he had initially a witness status in the criminal case. He alleges that the creation and maintenance of the “Surveillance Database” has no basis in domestic law.

Mr Vozhdayev (no. 28840/12) also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that there were no effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Application no. 28840/12:

1 . Did the registration of the applicant ’ s name in the “Surveillance Database” and the measures taken against him on 8 March 2012 constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention?

Is any such interference in accordance with the law? In particular, given that the orders of the Ministry of the Interior governing creation and maintenance of the “Surveillance Database” have not been published, is the domestic law accessible?

Is any such interference proportionate to the legitimate aim(s) sought to be achieved?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3 . ( i ) In view of the reply of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office of 25 December 2014 (see “Facts” part) that order no. 47 “On certain measures intended to strengthen the fight against extremism”, to which the Court had referred in its judgment Shimovolos v. Russia (no. 30194/09, 21 June 2011), was no longer in force, what was the legal basis for the creation and maintenance of the “Surveillance Database” ( информационная база “ Сторожевой контроль ” )?

(ii) The Government are requested to submit the legal act governing the creation and maintenance of the “Surveillance Database”. They are also requested to explain the applicable safeguards, controls and guarantees against abuse. In particular, they are requested to specify:

( a) categories of persons liable to be registered in the “Surveillance Database”;

( b) the State agencies or officials which take the decision to register the person;

( c) the data which is collected about registered persons;

( d) the cases in which the collected data may be disclosed to other State agencies or to the registered person concerned;

( e) the bodies or officials reviewing compliance with domestic law;

( f) possibility to complain to an independent body in case of abuse.

(iii) The Government are requested to provide a copy of the order for the registration of the applicant ’ s name in the “Surveillance Database”.

Application no. 61802/14:

4. Were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage during the hearing of the appeal court, which was conducted by means of a video link on 20 February 2014 (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Karachentsev v. Russia , no. 23229/11 , §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018)?