42870/16;34806/18;47339/18;13426/19;29789/19;61214/19;15054/20;2748/21;33417/21;46021/21;58443/21;61655/21;1498/22

THIRD SECTION CASE OF TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 42870/16 and 12 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tingayev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 June 2025, 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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW 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. 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). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.  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 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). 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”. 10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention and its Protocol No. 1, 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 and of Protocol No. 1 in the light of its well-established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning placement in a metal cage in a courtroom during criminal proceedings; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 101-11, 27 November 2012, concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92 156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Gorlov and Others, cited above, concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy to complain about permanent video surveillance in detention facilities; Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, 18 February 2020, concerning restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, concerning discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and Anchugov and Gladkov v. Russia, nos. 11157/04 and 15162/05, 4 July 2013, concerning prisoners’ right to vote). 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 the applicants under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention in respect of the lack of domestic remedies to complaint 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.  Mr Tingayev (application no. 42870/16) and Mr Kurbanmagomedov (application no. 34806/18) also raised additional complaints. Having examined these complaints, the Court 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 applications nos. 42870/16 and 34806/18 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 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; and also Anchugov and Gladkov, cited above, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction, as regards the complaints related to the permanent video surveillance in detention facilities, lack of an effective remedy in that respect and a violation of the right to vote in legislative elections. The Court also considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the applicant in application no. 42870/16. Finally, the Court further considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or 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 Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms, and discriminatory treatment of detainees in realisation of their voting rights, and dismisses the remainder of applications nos. 42870/16 and 34806/18 as inadmissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocol as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in applications nos. 42870/16, 34806/18, 13426/19, 15054/20, 33417/21 and 46021/21; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the remaining 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  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) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Detention facility Period of detention Specific circumstances Other complaints under well-established case‑law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     42870/16 13/07/2016 Aleksandr Vasilyevich TINGAYEV   IK-34 Krasnoyarsk Region 19/10/2009-13/02/2018 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-42, Krasnoyarsk Region, from 11/09/2018 - pending as of 16/09/2022, 1.92 sq. m of personal space, 78 inmates per unit; overcrowding, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of fresh air The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     34806/18 06/07/2018 Kurbanmagomed Rashidovich KURBANMAGOMEDOV   IK-6 Krasnoyarsk Region 18/12/2017 - 14/01/2018 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     47339/18 21/09/2018 Konstantin Gennadyevich CHERNENKO   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region January 2017 - 27/12/2020 opposite-sex operators Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - [videolink from IK-6 Khabarovsk Region] use of metal cage between 16/07/2021 and 20/12/2021 in various proceedings in courtrooms of Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Pervomayskiy District Court of Kirov, Permskiy District Court of Perm Region, Amursk Town Court, Nikolayevsk-on-Amur Town Court, Labytnangi Town Court, Khabarovsk Regional Court, Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region from 07/07/2007 to 14/08/2018, 3 sq. m personal space, overcrowding, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to running water, no or restricted access to warm water, lack of or insufficient physical exercise in fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient natural light, inadequate temperature, lack of or insufficient electric light, poor quality of food, no or restricted access to shower, mouldy or dirty cell, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, routine handcuffing 9,750     13426/19 20/02/2019 Marat Khalilovich SABIROV   IK-31 Krasnoyarsk Region 28/06/2018 - 10/09/2018 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     29789/19 12/06/2019 Dmitriy Viktorovich KHLEBNIKOV   IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region 24/12/2019 - 02/02/2021 opposite-sex operators Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - placement in metal cages during court hearings of Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk between 27/09/2018 and 30/04/2019,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - inadequate conditions of transportation in a van on 24/12/2019, 550 km, 10 hours; 12 to 18 inmates per compartment measuring 3 by 1 m; no heating, insufficient lighting 8,500     61214/19 08/08/2019 Maksim Yuryevich SAMOFALOV   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 27/03/2007 - pending, as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was placed in a metal cage during the hearings in civil proceedings in which he participated by means of a video link on 22/07/2020, 07/08/2020 and 20/08/2020 Verkhnyaya Pyshma Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region Salekhard Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 7,500     15054/20 10/03/2020 Ramil Gadzhimustafayevich IBRAGIMOV   IK-6 Khabarovsk Region 09/04/2018 - pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance   The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction     2748/21 11/12/2020 Vladimir Vasilyevich KAZARINOV   IK-25 Komi Republic 16/04/2010 - pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention after conviction - in IK-25 Komi Republic from 16/04/2010 – pending as of 16/09/2022 (1.5 to 3 sq. m per inmate, infestation of cell with insects/rodents, lack of fresh air, lack of or inadequate hygienic facilities, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of toiletries, lack or inadequate furniture, lack or insufficient quantity of food, mouldy or dirty cell, no or restricted access to shower, no or restricted access to warm water, overcrowding, passive smoking, poor quality of food),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transport by train from 14/08/2020 to 15/08/2020; lack of fresh air; lack of or insufficient electric light, no or restricted access to toilet; insufficient number of sleeping places; overcrowding,   Prot. 1 Art. 3 - ineligibility to vote in or stand for elections - Inability to take part in the parliamentary elections (State Duma) in 2021 13,250     33417/21 16/06/2021 Yakov Dmitriyevich TOLSTIKHIN   IK-42 Krasnoyarsk Region, IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region 07/08/2015-18/02/2021   16/03/2021 – pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction   46021/21 25/08/2021 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich TERENTYEV   IK-19 Komi Republic 30/12/2020-19/08/2021 13/10/2021 detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction   58443/21 11/11/2021 Petr Sergeyevich TALONPOYKO   IK-1 Komi Republic 23/03/2021 - pending as of 16/09/2022 opposite-sex operators Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, train from 20/11/2021 to 24/11/2021; overcrowding (<0.5 m²), inadequate temperature, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, insufficient number of sleeping places, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, no or restricted access to warm water,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 1,000   61655/21 29/11/2021 Sergey Andreyevich PARFENOV   IZ-1 Irkutsk 08/10/2021 - pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits - (refusal of family visits and telephone calls pending criminal proceedings against the applicant),   Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region since 08/10/2021 - refusals of long-term and short-term family visits and telephone calls. The last request was dismissed on 25/03/2022. Telephone calls were also not allowed,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - 08/10/2021, 02/12/2021 Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Kirovskiy Regional Court of Irkutsk 29/10/2021, 24/12/2021 video-link from SIZO-1 Irkutsk Region,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities 9,750   1498/22 03/12/2021 Vladimir Arkadyevich ZHURAVLEV   SIZO-1 Irkutsk 01/03/2020 - pending as of 16/09/2022 detention in different cells with video surveillance Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - hearings on extension of detention at court premises, 01/03/2020-18/11/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court,   Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - from 28/02/2020 and pending as of 16/09/2022; detention orders issued by the Oktyabrsky District Court of Irkutsk, upheld by the Irkutsk Regional Court: fragility of reasons employed by the court, failure to consider alternative measures 9,750   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.