Applicant name CHERNOVA AND OTHERS
Applicant type Natural person (prisoner)
Number of applicants 33
Country Russia
Application no.51892/19, 3396/21, 10911/21, 37114/21
45963/21, 46495/21, 46543/21, 46605/21
50024/21, 58083/21, 58140/21, 61245/21
2152/22, 3022/22, 7059/22, 10534/22
10674/22, 13016/22, 14798/22, 15692/22
18077/22, 20109/22, 20872/22, 26132/22
29110/22, 29584/22, 30055/22, 30075/22
34241/22, 35303/22, 41182/22, 46233/22
14334/23
Date 23/11/2023
Judges María Elósegui, President,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Kateřina Šimáčková
Institution Court
Type Judgment
Outcome Art. 8 Violation
Reason No legal basis
Type of privacy Informational privacy; relational privacy
Keywords Surveillance, visits
Facts of the case One applicant complained of Art. 8 (1) – lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – IZ-1 Saratov, 27/04/2018 – 25/04/2019, restriction of visit of 3 minor daughters, multiple complaints, last time dismissed on 20/06/2019, Saratov Regional Court;

Other applicant complained of Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – KP-10 in Irkutsk Region, 13/03/2019 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court; opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance

Other applicant Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Tver Region, 08/07/2021 – 06/01/2022, detention in different cells with video surveillance, opposite-sex operators

Fourth applicant Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – remand centre IZ-1 in St Petersburg from 27/04/2019 until at least 04/07/2022 (the date of the introduction of the application). The applicant was held in two different cells with video surveillance. The video surveillance was performed by operators of the opposite sex;
Analysis Mini judgement
Other Article violation? Yes, many
Damage awarded 11.000 (8.000 for the first, 1.000 for the other three applicants invoking Article 8 ECHR)
Documents Judgment