07 Jul Prisoners’ video surveillance led to the violation of the right to privacy

In the case of Gorlov and Others v. Russia (application nos. 27057/06 and 2 others) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8. 

It further held, by a majority, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 

The applicants, Igor Yevgenyevich Gorlov, Denis Viktorovich Vakhmistrov and Viktor Valeryevich Sablin, are Russian nationals. The first two applicants are currently serving sentences in penal institutions in the Krasnoyarsk Region (Russia). The third applicant lives in Shilka in the Zabaykalskiy Region (Russia).

The case concerned the permanent video surveillance of detainees in their cells. They were under constant surveillance by prison guards, including female guards, by a closed-circuit television camera (“CCTV camera”) installed inside. In the cells was a CCTV camera installed above the door, at ceiling level, in such a manner that the entire cell was clearly visible, including the bed and some parts of the toilet.

The Court found that the relevant legislative provisions set forth a general rule enabling the administrations of penal institutions and pre-trial detention centres to have recourse to video surveillance. In particular, it was not specified, for example, whether both the common parts and residential areas should be subject to surveillance; at which time of the day it should be operational; its conditions and length; the applicable procedures, and so on. The Court found in particular that the domestic legal framework regarding permanent video surveillance was not sufficiently clear, precise and detailed to afford appropriate protection against arbitrary interference by the public authorities. It therefore concluded that the measure had not been “in accordance with the law” as required by Article 8 § 2. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8.

The Court found that Mr Vakhmistrov and Mr Sablin had not had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, in breach of Article 13. The thrust of the applicants’ complaint was the absence of any meaningful avenues of redress at national level in their particular situation, that is, their being placed under permanent video surveillance, which had adversely affected their privacy. 

References from the European Court of Human Rights