| 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 |
| Keywords | Suveillance |
| Facts of the case | Main judgement about Article 3 ECHR, 4 applicants also invoke the right to privacy 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; 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 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 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; |
| Analysis | Mini judgement |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, many |
| Damage awarded | four applicants invoking Article 8 ECHR together get 11.000 |
| Documents | Judgment |