| Applicant name | BURTSEV AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | Prisoner |
| Number of applicants | 35 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 45302/19 48941/19 57812/19 3423/20 2578/21 4535/21 9051/21 9684/21 10854/21 10979/21 12266/21 15609/21 17784/21 18797/21 19439/21 20022/21 20308/21 20314/21 20338/21 20340/21 20814/21 21105/21 22550/21 22722/21 22724/21 22739/21 22901/21 23233/21 23906/21 24118/21 24234/21 25249/21 25331/21 25649/21 26373/21 |
| Date | 15/02/2024 |
| Judges | Branko Lubarda, President, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Mini-judgment |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained principally 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. 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 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). 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 pre-trial and post-conviction detention facilities was not “in accordance with law”. |
| Analysis | |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 3, 5, 6 and 13 |
| Damage awarded | 56.800 |
| Documents | Judgment |