Last Updated on November 10, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GABIDULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 43125/17 and 7 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gabidullinand Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and ViktoriyaMaradudina,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities. In applications nos. 2988/18 and 22287/18 the applicants also complained about their absence from appeal hearings.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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
6. The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 8
“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.”
7. In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with law” and that the physical separation of the applicants from their visitors by means of a glass partition cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTs
10. In applications nos. 2988/18 and 22287/18 the applicants also complained that the hearings before the Supreme Court of Tatarstan related to their appeals of the investigators’ refusal to allow family visits had been held in their absence. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present case, and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the above-mentioned complaint (see Mukhametov and Others, cited above, § 53).
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others, cited above, § 57), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
13. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities admissible and holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints in applications nos. 2988/18 and 22287/18;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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;
5. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
|
Detention facility | Type of restriction | Other relevant information | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 43125/17
18/01/2018 |
Ruslan Rafisovich GABIDULLIN
1984 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits | Short-term family visit refused on 22/06/2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 05/09/2017) | 3,500 |
| 2. | 73696/17
14/09/2017 |
ZulfatAlfatovich SABIRZYANOV
1988 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits,physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits | Short-term family visits refused on 13/06/2017, 13/10/2017, 17/11/2017, and 07/02/2018 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 25/08/2017, 30/01/2018, and 20/03/2018)
Short-term family visit of 26/03/2018 – separation with a glass partition and supervision by a warden |
3,500 |
| 3. | 2988/18
15/12/2017 |
Irek Ilfirovich NASIROV
1985 |
IZ-16/1
Kazan |
refusal of short-term family visits,physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits | Short-term family visits refused on 03/05/2017, 26/09/2017, and 20/12/2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 21/11/2017 and 20/02/2018)
Short-term family visit of 08/11/2017 – separation with a glass partition and supervision by a warden |
3,500 |
| 4. | 3744/18
25/12/2017 |
IlnarKhusainovich ZINNATOV
1984 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits,physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits | Short-term family visits refused on 07/07/2017, 24/07/2017, 22/08/2017, 05/09/2017, 19/09/2017, 13/10/2017, 01/11/2017, 21/12/2017, and 26/01/2018 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 08/09/2017, 03/10/2017, 24/10/2017, 03/11/2017, 28/11/2017, 15/12/2017, 19/12/2017, 27/02/2018, and 27/03/2018)
Short-term family visit of 13/11/2017 – separation with a glass partition and supervision by a warden |
3,500 |
| 5. | 11424/18
13/02/2018 |
Sergey Stepanovich DERZHIPILSKIY
1996 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits | Short-term visits refused on 18/10/2017, 25/10/2017, 23/11/2017 and 06/12/2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 12/01/2018, 16/01/2018, 23/01/2018, and 30/01/2018) | 3,500 |
| 6. | 13260/18
05/03/2018 |
Marat Aukhatovich TULYAKOV
1979 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits,physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits | Short-term visits refused on 11/08/2017 and 05/12/2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 01/12/2017 and 26/09/2017)
Short-term family visit of 27/11/2017 – separation with a glass partition and supervision by a warden |
3,500 |
| 7. | 13806/18
03/03/2018 |
RustemSamatovich YAMALIYEV
1985 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits | Short-term visits refused on 22/06/2017 and 26/07/2017 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 19/09/2017 and 26/09/2017) | 3,500 |
| 8. | 22287/18
27/04/2018 |
Farid Shavkatovich KRYYEV
1965 |
IZ-16/1 Kazan | refusal of short-term family visits | Short-term family visits refused on 11/01/2018 (upheld by the Supreme Court of Tatarstan on 20/03/2018) | 3,500 |
[i]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply