GLUKHIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT or inevitable in the circumstances. Nor was it claimed that his actions had presented any danger to public order or transport safety. However, the authorities did not show the requisite degree of tolerance towards the applicant’s peaceful solo demonstration. They did not take the above relevant elements into account and did not assess whether the applicant’s use of a cardboard figure holding a banner had constituted an expression of his views. The only relevant consideration was the need to punish unlawful conduct. This is not a sufficient consideration in this context, in terms of Article 10 of the Convention, in the absence of any aggravating elements (see Novikova and Others, cited above, § 199). Thus, the courts failed to adduce “relevant or sufficient reasons” to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. 57. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 58. The applicant complained that the processing of his personal data in the framework of administrative offence proceedings, including the use of facial recognition technology, had breached his right to respect for his private life. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A. Admissibility 59. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions 60. The applicant submitted that he had been filmed by CCTV cameras installed in the Moscow underground, identified by facial recognition technology and subsequently convicted of an administrative offence on the basis of evidence thereby obtained. There had been no judicial decision authorising the collection, storage and use of video-footage of him. The Police Act and Decree no. 410, which had served as the legal basis for the 20