Last Updated on May 15, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 26 October 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 34663/17
Maksim Yevgenyevich IONOV against Russia
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicants
2. The applicants are co-defendants in the criminal proceedings. They were detained on remand in 2014 and charged with conspiracy to commit murders and armed robberies operating as a criminal syndicate.
3. On 18 November 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic. On 21 February 2017 the Supreme Court fixed the opening date of the trial for 6 March.
4. On 28 December 2017 the applicants were convicted as charged and given custodial sentences. The appeal proceedings are pending.
B. The facts of individual cases
1. The case of Mr Ionov (no. 34663/17, lodged on 15 April 2017)
5. The applicant, Mr MaksimYevgenyevichIonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982.
6. Between 15 January 2014 and 17 November 2016 Mr Ionov was allowed to have seven short visits from his wife and children. His petitions for a visit filed on 16 and 27 September and 10 October 2016 were refused by the investigator. On 30 September and 9 December 2016 the Sovetskiy District Court in Kazan and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan, respectively, rejected Mr Ionov’s challenge to the investigator’s decision, finding that the decision had not interfered with his constitutional rights or freedoms.
7. On 3 February 2017 Mr Ionov was allowed a one-hour meeting with his wife. They were separated by two glass barriers set two meters apart and spoke on the interphone which was listened in by a prison officer.
8. On 22 March and 10 May 2017 Mr Ionov asked the presiding judge to authorise a meeting with his wife. On 18 May 2017 the judge refused his application, stating that “according to the prevailing practice of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan, visits from family members [would be] authorised after the judgment [had been] given”. On 29 May 2017 the acting president of the Supreme Court refused to review the trial judge’s decision.
9. On 8 June 2017 a further application for prison visit from Mr Ionov’s wife was rejected.
2. The case of Mr Arzamasov (no. 46573/17, lodged on 11 May 2017)
10. The applicant, Mr AleksandrIvanovichArzamasov, is a Russian national who was born in 1990.
11. Between 21 January 2014 and 17 November 2016 Mr Arzamasov was allowed to have ten meetings with family members. No visits were authorised from 13 June until 17 November 2016. On 4 October 2016 the investigator wrote to Mr Arzamasov that, by virtue of section 18 of the Pre‑trial Detention Act she had absolute discretion in the matter of family visits and rejected his application for a visit without giving any reasons. On 28 October 2016 the investigator’s superior upheld her decision. He noted that Mr Arzamasov had not pleaded guilty or co-operated with the investigation.
12. On 3 October and 6 December 2016 the Sovetskiy District Court in Kazan and the Supreme Court of Tatarstan, respectively, refused to review an earlier decision by which the investigator had refused an application for a visit. They held that it was not amenable to judicial review because it was not “connected to the pre-trial prosecution” or undermined his constitutional rights or freedoms.
13. On 6 February 2017 Mr Arzamasov’s parents visited him in prison. They were separated by two glass barriers set two metres apart and spoke on the interphone. An officer listened in to their conversation.
14. On 2 and 18 May 2017 Mr Arzamasov asked the trial judge for permission to see his parents and sister who were not listed as witnesses for the defence or the prosecution. The prosecutor objected, stating that Mr Arzamasov had not pleaded guilty and that it might be necessary to take testimony from his father. The trial judge endorsed the prosecutor’s position.
15. On 13 June 2017 Mr Arzamasov’s mother asked the trial judge in writing for permission to see her son. She did not receive any reply, even after she complained to the president of the Supreme Court.
16. On 6 July 2017, after the prosecutor had finished presenting the evidence, Mr Arzamasov reiterated his request for permission to see his parents. The trial judge rejected it, stating that his parents “might wish to corroborate his alibi”. Mr Arzamasov filed an appeal but the trial judge refused to pass it on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits.
17. On 25 September 2017 Mr Arzamasov renewed his request for permission to see his parents and sister and to make phone calls to them. He pointed out that he had finished giving evidence to the trial court. On the same day the trial judge refused his request on the grounds that all defendants were charged with membership of a criminal organisation and that “meetings with family members could interfere with the establishment of the truth”. Mr Arzamasov’s appeal was stopped by the trial judge for the same reasons as the previous one.
18. Following the pronouncement of the conviction, on 9 January 2018 Mr Arzamasov had a short meeting with his parents behind a double glass barrier. On 13 January 2018 his mother and sister asked the trial judge for permission to see him. The judge’s reply reproduced the text of section 18 of the Pre-trial Detention Act.
3. The case of Mr Sadriyev (no. 76213/17, lodged on 25 September 2017)
19. The applicant, Mr IrekIlshatovichSadriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1994.
20. On 5 April and 25 May 2017 Mr Sadriyev asked the trial judge to authorise prison visits from his family members. He was told that he should raise his petition at one of the trial hearings which he did on 6 July 2017 asking for a meeting with his brother. On the following day his request was refused. A subsequent application from his brother was likewise rejected on 2 August 2017.
21. After the conviction was pronounced, Mr Sadriyev was allowed to see his family members twice a month. Meetings lasted up to one hour, they were separated with two glass barriers and spoke on the interphone. An officer listened in to their conversation.
4. The case of Mr Yelistratov (no. 76929/17, lodged on 4 October 2017)
22. The applicant, Mr Andrey VyacheslavovichYelistratov, is a Russian national who was born in 1994.
23. Between 25 May and 22 June 2017 Mr Yelistratov and his mother repeatedly asked the trial judge to allow a prison visit. None of Mr Yelistratov’s family members were witnesses for the prosecution or defence. On 7 July 2017 the trial judge refused the petition, without giving reasons. He also refused to pass Mr Yelistratov’s appeal on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits.
24. By letter of 11 August 2017, the trial judge informed Mr Yelistratov’s mother that the permission to see family members would be denied for the entire duration of the trial.
25. Following his conviction, Mr Yelistratov could see his family members on 17 January, 2 February and 1 March 2018. Meetings lasted up to one hour, they were separated with two glass barriers and spoke on the interphone. An officer listened in to their conversation.
5. The case of Mr Yalakov (no. 2945/18, lodged on 30 November 2017)
26. The applicant, Mr IlsurIldusovichYalakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1993.
27. On 25 May 2017 Mr Yalakov asked the trial judge for permission to see his family. On 6 June 2017 the judge refused his petition, referring to the prevailing practice of the Supreme Court not to allow prison visits until the conviction had become final.
28. On 3 October 2017 Mr Yalakov reiterated his request to see his mother and brother and also asked for permission to call them on the phone. He pointed out that the evidence had been produced and that he had explained his position to the trial court. On the same day the trial judge refused his request on the grounds that all defendants were charged with membership of a criminal organisation and that “meetings with family members could interfere with the establishment of the truth”. He also refused to pass Mr Yalakov’s appeal on to the Supreme Court on the ground that an appeal against an interim decision should be filed together with an appeal against the judgment on the merits.
29. On 12 October 2017 Mr Yalakov’s mother asked the trial judge for permission to visit her son. She did not receive any response.
6. The case of Mr Garifullin (no. 8936/18, lodged on 18 January 2018)
30. The applicant, Mr AynurNailovichGarifullin, is a Russian national who was born in 1993.
31. The facts of Mr Garifullin’s case are similar to those of Mr Yalakov’s. On 19 July and 3 October 2017 he asked the trial judge for permission to see his parents and to talk to them on the phone. The permission was withheld and his appeal disallowed.
32. After the conviction was pronounced, on 29 December 2017 Mr Garifullin was allowed to have a one-hour-long meeting with his parents. They were separated by two glass barriers and talked on the interphone.
7. The cases of Mr Vladimir Savelchev and Mr NikolaySavelchev (nos. 27907/18 and 28123/18, lodged on 24 and 16 May 2018)
33. The applicants, Mr Vladimir AleksandrovichSavelchev and Mr NikolayAleksandrovichSavelchev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1990 and 1989 respectively. They are brothers.
34. The facts of the Savelchev brothers’ cases are similar to those of Mr Yalakov’s. On 7 July 2017 they asked the trial judge for permission to see their parents or to talk to them on the phone. The permission was withheld and appeals disallowed. As a result, they were not allowed to see their family until after the judgment was handed down on 28 December2017.
35. After the conviction was pronounced, they were allowed to have no more than two family visits a month, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre-trial Detention Act. Visitors were separated from the applicants by a glass barrier and supervised by a prison officer.
8. The cases of Mr Mishin (nos. 27752/18 and 34962/18, lodged on 5 June and 3 July 2018)
36. The applicant, Mr Aleksey YevgenyevichMishin, is a Russian national who was born in 1991.
37. On 7 July 2017 Mr Mishin asked the trial judge for permission to see his mother and brother who had already been heard by the court. The permission was withheld and appeals disallowed. As a result, he were not allowed to see his family until after the judgment was handed down on 28 December2017.
38. After the conviction was pronounced, Mr Mishin was allowed to have no more than two family visits a month, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre-trial Detention Act. Visitors were separated from him by a glass barrier and supervised by a prison officer.
39. On 6 June 2018 Mr Mishin’s mother and stepfather filed an application with the Supreme Court of Tatarstan for permission to visit him in prison. On the same day a Supreme Court judge put a handwritten resolution on their application: “On account of a restriction on the time allowed for studying the case-law, [the visit] is to be authorised after 14 June 2018”.
40. Mr Mishin complained to the President of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan. He pointed out that his mother had travelled 600 kilometres away from her home on 6 June only to be denied permission to see her son.
41. On 14 June 2018 a deputy president of the Supreme Court replied that the defendants had been given time until 14 June to study the case-file. Permission for a prison visit had therefore been granted after that date.
COMPLAINTS
42. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about unjustified restrictions on family visits. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, that they did not have an effective domestic remedy for that grievance.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of –
(a) refusal of the applicants’ requests for meetings with their family members during the investigation and trial?
(b) physical separation and supervision during these meetings?
(c) the practice of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan preventing defendants from having any visits from family members for the entire duration of the trial?
(d) restrictions on the duration and frequency of family visits in the post‑conviction period?
(e) delaying permission by one week in the case of Mr Mishin (no. 34962/18)?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above grievances, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 151‑54, 12 June 2008)? In particular, was it compatible with the Russian law that applications for permission to have a family visit were rejected by means of a non-procedural communication such as a letter? Was it compatible with the Russian law that appeals against such communications were not passed on to the court of appeals (see in particular the case of Mr Arzamasov)?
APPENDIX
List of applications
1. 34663/17 Ionov v. Russia
2. 46573/17 Arzamasov v. Russia
3. 76213/17 Sadriyev v. Russia
4. 76929/17 Yelistratov v. Russia
5. 2945/18 Yalakov v. Russia
6. 8936/18 Garifullin v. Russia
7. 27752/18 Mishin v. Russia
8. 27907/18 Vladimir Savelchev v. Russia
9. 28123/18 NikolaySavelchev v. Russia
10. 34962/18 Mishin v. Russia
Leave a Reply