KRIVOSHEIN A SHULAYEV proti Rusku

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF KRIVOSHEIN AND SHULAYEV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 35052/18 and 13289/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 February 2026

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

In the case of Krivoshein and Shulayev v. Russia,

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

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 February 2026,

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 post-conviction detention facilities. Mr Shulayev (application no. 13289/21) 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. Jurisdiction

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 8 and 13 of the Convention

7. The applicants complained about detention under permanent video surveillance in post-conviction detention facilities and about the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

8. 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 summarised 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 (1) 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) and (2) does not presuppose any balancing exercise or enable an individual to obtain a judicial review of the proportionality of his or her placement under permanent video surveillance to the vested interests in securing his or her privacy (ibid., § 108).

9. 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 post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law” and that they did not have at their disposal an effective remedy for their complaints in that respect.

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

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

11. Mr Shulayev (application no. 13289/21) 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 Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), 31 January 2017, concerning use of metal cages in courtroom, and N.T. v. Russia, no. 14727/11, §§ 38-52, 2 June 2020, concerning inadequate conditions of detention under strict imprisonment regime).

5. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by Mr Shulayev (application no. 13289/21) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of the lack of domestic remedies to complain about placement of a detainee in a metal cage in the courtroom and discriminatory treatment of detainees in realisation their right to vote (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).

13. Lastly, the Court has examined the remainder of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention lodged by the same applicant 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, they 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

6. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

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; see also N.T., cited above, §§ 66‑70), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in the present case in respect of the applicants’ complaints related to the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and lack of an effective remedy in that regard. It further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table for the violations as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
3. Declares the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in post-conviction detention facilities and other complaints under the well‑established case‑law of the Court (see the appended table) admissible; finds that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 13289/21 as inadmissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 8 and 13 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 finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction, as regards Mr Krivoshein (application no. 35052/18);

(b) that the respondent State is to pay Mr Shulayev (application no. 13289/21), within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 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 applicant.