RADEYKO A OSTATNÍ proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF RADEYKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 7427/18 and 9 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

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

In the case of Radeyko and Others v. Russia,

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

Darian Pavli, President,

Andreas Zünd,

Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,

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. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. 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.

2. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT APPLICATION no. 55778/18

6. As regards application no. 55778/18, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration whereby they acknowledged that the applicant had been transported in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint about the inadequate conditions of transport in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The Government offered to pay the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The said amount 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 this amount within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.

7. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

8. 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 applications 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).

9. 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).

10. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration 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 application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

11. 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 application in this part (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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).

13. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike out application no. 55778/18 in the part concerning the inadequate conditions of detention during transport and the absence of any effective remedy regarding that complaint.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention

14. 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 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.”

15. 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).

16. 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”.

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

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

18. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (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 Idalov, cited above, §§ 103-108 and 154-58, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings, Shlykov and Others v. Russia, nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 69-93, 19 January 2021, concerning routine handcuffing of detainees under strict imprisonment regime, Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention, and 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).

19. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of conditions of post‑conviction detention.

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

20. In applications nos. 55629/18, 20981/19 and 15187/21, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

21. 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.

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

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

22. 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.”

23. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gorlov and Others, cited above; Idalov, cited above; Svinarenko and Slyadnev, also cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

24. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (application no. 55778/18) concerning conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect and decides to strike out this part of the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
3. 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, decides that there is no need to examine separately the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning an alleged lack of an effective remedy in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of conditions of post-conviction detention, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 55629/18, 20981/19 and 15187/21 as inadmissible;
4. Holds that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities;
5. 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);
6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 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)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.