Last Updated on October 4, 2022 by LawEuro
The case concerns a ban on telephone calls for prisoners serving life sentences under the strict regime. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF YUDIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 34963/12 and 6 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Yudin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georgios A. Serghides, President,
AnjaSeibert-Fohr,
PeeterRoosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the Appendix, (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning ban on telephone calls for prisoners serving life sentences under the strict regime, inability to particate in a court hearing and permanent video surveillance of detainees to the Russian Government (“the Government”) initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications indicated as a partial decision in the Appendix;
the parties’observations;
Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a ban on telephone calls for prisoners serving life sentences under the strict regime. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
2. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
3. The applicants complained that the ban on maintaining contact with their family and relatives by telephone applied to them as life prisoners under the strict imprisonment regime had breached their right to respect for their private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
4. The Government’s argument that the applicants in applications nos. 6330/16, 34963/12 and 64921/12 failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of restrictions on telephone calls should be dismissed. The restrictions complained of are prescribed by domestic law (see Danilevich v. Russia, no. 31469/08, §§ 24 and 52, 19 October 2021) and the Government failed to demonstrate availability of an effective remedy in that respect. The applicants did not comment.
5. The Court further notes that the applicants’ complaints are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
6. The general principles for assessing compatibility of a restriction on prisoners’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention are well-established in the Court’s case-law and have been summarised in the recent case of Danilevich, cited above, §§ 45-47.
7. In Danilevich,the Court reviewed the situation of life prisoners under the strict regime noting, in the light of its well-established case-law (Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015) and relevant Council of Europe instruments, that a nearly total ban on telephone calls was unacceptable and that no additional restrictions should be imposed on life-sentenced prisoners as compared to other prisoners when it concerned the possibilities for them to maintain meaningful contact with their families and other close persons. The Court concluded that such restrictions on telephone calls for a life prisoner under the strict regime were not necessary in a democratic society and amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private and family life (Danilevich, cited above, §§ 52‑65).
8. Having examined the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The Court considers that the ban of telephone communications imposed on the applicants, except in an emergency, for a fixed period of ten years, which could be extended but could not be shortened, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and amounted to a disproportionate interference with their right to respect for their private and family life.
9. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. In applications nos. 34963/12 and 64921/12, the applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention, falling under the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see the Appendix). 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 disclose a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, § 52, 16 February 2016, concerning the authorities’ failure to ensure the applicant’s effective participation in civil proceedings, and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 81-100, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance in detention facilities).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. In applications nos. 34963/12, 64921/12, 52592/14, 6330/16, 46429/16, 52594/16, 6585/20, the applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined these complaints and 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.
13. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicants claimed various amounts specified in the Appendix in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.
15. The Government considered that, should the Court find a violation of the applicants’ rights, a just satisfaction award could be made in accordance with the Court’s case-law.
16. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the amounts indicated in the Appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants and dismisses the remainder of the claims.
17. As to the claims in respect of costs and expenses, the Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to their reimbursement only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to quantum (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6 November 1980, § 23, Series A no. 38). In the present case, the Court considers it reasonable not to award any sums to the applicants beyond those that had already been granted to them by the Court as legal aid in the course of proceedings before it.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decidesto join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the restrictions on the applicant’s telephone calls to their relatives and other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the Appendix, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the restrictions on telephone calls for the applicants as life prisoners under the strict regime;
4. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 6 and 8 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised in applications nos. 34963/12 and 64921/12 under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the Appendix);
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the Appendix, plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction and costs and expenses.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Georgios A. Serghides
Deputy Registrar President
_____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 8 of the Convention on account of ban on telephone calls under a strict regime of life imprisonment and other complaints under the well-established case-law:
| No. | Application no.
Lodged on |
Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence NationalityRepresentative |
Other WECL complaints
(violation) |
Costs and expenses claims, in euros (EUR) | Just satisfaction claims, in euros (EUR) | The Court’s award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, in euros (EUR) |
| 1. | 34963/12
02/05/2012 |
Andrey Anatolyevich
YUDIN 1970 Chelyabinsk Russian Represented by: Oksana Vladimirovna Preobrazhenskaya |
Article 6 – the applicant was absent from the civil proceedings in the Priuralskiy District Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region and the Yamalo‑Nenetskiy Regional Court on 10/10/2011 and 16/01/2012.Domestic courts failed to consider the issue whether the nature of the dispute was such as to require the applicant’s attendance and whether his attendance was essential in order to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings and to consider appropriate procedural arrangements enabling the applicants to be heard (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 49‑53, 16 February 2016) | 2,625 | 75,000 | 2,600 |
| 2. | 64921/12
30/08/2012 |
TyulegenMingishevich KHABBASOV 1984 Solikamsk RussianRepresented by:Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova |
A8 – detention in different cells with video surveillance in IZ-56/1 Orenburg Region between 14/01/2012 – 01/08/2012 (see Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-100, 2 July 2019) | 2,200 | 30,000 | 2,000 |
| 3. | 6585/20
09/01/2020 |
TyulegenMingishevich KHABBASOV 1984 Solikamsk Russian |
– | |||
| 4. | 52592/14
24/06/2014 |
Igor Viktorovich
KOROBOV Represented by: Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova |
– | 2,250 | 10,000 | 2,000 |
| 5. | 6330/16
14/01/2016 |
Ruslan Kazymovich KUBASHEV 1985 Elban Russian, Ukrainian Represented by:Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva |
– | 1,800 | 17,000 | 2,000 |
| 6. | 46429/16
22/07/2016 |
Yuriy Nikolayevich
MAKHNOV Represented by: Yekaterina Viktorovna Yefremova |
– | 2,200 | 20,000 | 2,000 |
| 7. | 52594/16
08/08/2016 |
Mikhail Anatolyevich KARIMOV 1963 Elban Russian |
– | 2,810 | 27,000 | 2,000 |
Leave a Reply