{"id":21706,"date":"2023-11-23T10:01:30","date_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:01:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21706"},"modified":"2023-11-23T10:01:30","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T10:01:30","slug":"case-of-ponomarev-and-others-v-russia-12205-18-and-44-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21706","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF PONOMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 12205\/18 and 44 others"},"content":{"rendered":"

European Court of Human Rights<\/p>\n

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF PONOMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 12205\/18 and 44 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n23 November 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Ponomarev and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nBranko Lubarda, President,
\nArmen Harutyunyan,
\nAna Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n

2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4. The applicants complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre\u2011trial detention facilities. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. JURISDICTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a040792\/10 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a068\u201173, 17\u00a0January 2023).<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. 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.<\/p>\n

8. In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149\/10, 13\u00a0February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348\/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172\/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v.\u00a0Russia, 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.<\/p>\n

9. 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 \u201cin accordance with law\u201d and that the physical separation of the applicants from their visitors by means of a glass partition cannot be justified as being \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a08 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well\u2011established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.\u00a032541\/08 and 43441\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia\u00a0[GC], no.\u00a05826\/03, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0154\u201158, 161\u201165, 22\u00a0May 2012, as regards an excessive length of detention review proceedings; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255\/10 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 114-56, 9\u00a0April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and absence of an effective remedy to complain about poor transport conditions; Gorlov and\u00a0Others v. Russia, nos. 27057\/06 and\u00a02\u00a0others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a08578\/12, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a031\u201133, 18\u00a0February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits; and Chaldayev, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre\u2011trial detention facilities).<\/p>\n

12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint lodged by Mr Zabbarov (application no.\u00a032409\/21) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no.\u00a010597\/13, \u00a7 27, 26 March 2019).<\/p>\n

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404\/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16\u00a0September 2022;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;<\/p>\n

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);<\/p>\n

6. Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint lodged by Mr Zabbarov (application no.\u00a032409\/21) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom<\/p>\n

7. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Branko Lubarda
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_______________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 8 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nDetention facility<\/strong><\/td>\nType of restriction<\/strong><\/td>\nOther relevant information<\/strong><\/td>\nOther complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant\/household<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[i]<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n12205\/18<\/p>\n

09\/02\/2018<\/td>\n

Sergey Aleksandrovich PONOMAREV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Moscow<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant was detained in a remand prison between<\/p>\n

March 2014 and 19\/12\/2017 without long-term family visits<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n13413\/18<\/p>\n

07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n

Andrey Yuryevich KULEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Volgograd Region<\/td>\nlimitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\n10\/06\/2017 – end date unspecified (on-going as of the date of introduction of the application with the Court)<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n18894\/18<\/p>\n

05\/04\/2018<\/td>\n

Yevgeniy Anatolyevich GUSEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Vologda Region,<\/p>\n

SIZO-3 Vologda Region<\/td>\n

limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, limitation on the length of short-term family visits, glass partition, poor quality of phone lines, refusal of long-term family visits, lack of ventilation<\/td>\nOn many occasions the applicant had short-term visits. On 12\/05\/2017 a court authorised a long-term visit but the SIZO-3 administration refused to provide it. The period concerned ends on 15\/04\/2018 when the applicant left SIZO-3 Vologda Region.<\/td>\nArt. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – 14\/03\/2012-07\/12\/2017 and 14\/04\/2018-24\/04\/2018;<\/p>\n

multiple transfers between to\/from the courthouse pending criminal proceedings (conditions of transport and detention in a holding cell in the courthouse): transfers in a single-occupancy compartment in a prison van, lack of fresh air, overcrowding;<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport<\/td>\n

4,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4.<\/td>\n26925\/18<\/p>\n

08\/05\/2018<\/td>\n

Vladislav Ravilevich NIZAMUTDINOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1971<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5.<\/td>\n40655\/18<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2018<\/td>\n

Albina Niyazovna GABBAZOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1<\/p>\n

St Petersburg and Leningrad Region<\/td>\n

refusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nthe applicant is a partner of a detainee; she has repeatedly requested a visit since 26\/01\/2018, but to no avail. She appealed against the refusal under<\/p>\n

Art. 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and on 22\/05\/2018, the St\u00a0Petersburg City Court upheld the refusal<\/td>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6.<\/td>\n4881\/19<\/p>\n

25\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Nikita Vladimirovich SAMOYLENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Kazan<\/td>\nlimitation on the frequency of short-term family visits<\/td>\nLimitation on the frequency of short-term family visits between 18\/07\/2017 and 07\/09\/2018 (during the proceedings in the court of appeal)<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7.<\/td>\n5291\/19<\/p>\n

26\/12\/2018<\/td>\n

Aleksey Leonidovich UDOVIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant has been in pre-trial detention since 2015, mother, daughter and brother were prohibited from visiting him in 2015\u20112016. It appears that since 2016, when the case was transferred to the trial court, the ban was upheld only in respect of his mother: the applicant was denied phone calls and visits from her, because at some point during the trial he allegedly passed her a letter, stating his view on his criminal prosecution. The ban was in effect when the applicant lodged his application with the Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8.<\/td>\n8739\/19<\/p>\n

01\/02\/2019<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Dmitriyevich POLKOVNIKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Artamonov Aleksandr Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

SIZO-5 Moscow Region<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nOn 04\/08\/2018 the applicant\u2019s counsel requested a short-term visit for the applicant\u2019s mother. On 06\/07\/2018 the investigator refused. The applicant challenged the refusal before a court but to no avail.<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9.<\/td>\n21927\/19<\/p>\n

02\/04\/2019<\/td>\n

Zinaida Timofeyevna YUSHKINA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-3 Volgograd Region<\/td>\nrefusal of any type of family visits<\/p>\n

(up until 2019), physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visit provided in 2019 (following a decision of 24\/12\/2018)<\/p>\n

02\/11\/2017 – 19\/03\/2019<\/td>\n

the applicant is the mother of a detainee whom she was not allowed to visit in detention<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10.<\/td>\n30417\/19<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2019<\/td>\n

Artur Anatolyevich VALOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nBetween 25\/04\/2018 and 22\/02\/2019 the applicant was refused visits from his wife without any explanation. He challenged at least one of the refusals under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (first cassation appeal of 18\/01\/2019), his complaints were dismissed.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11.<\/td>\n32238\/19<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2019<\/td>\n

Mikhail Olegovich YEZHAKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

SIZO-8 Sergiyev-Posad<\/td>\nrefusal of any type of family visits<\/td>\nno visits allowed for the applicant\u2019s mother, 14\/09\/2018-22\/04\/2019<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12.<\/td>\n43888\/19<\/p>\n

03\/08\/2019<\/td>\n

Renat Gumarovich GALIMOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1987<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant was held in pre-trial detention and requested a visit from his mother and wife (on 10\/12\/2018). On 20\/12\/2018 the investigator refused. The applicant appealed against the decision. On 22\/01\/2019 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan dismissed his claims. The applicant requested a visit and appealed several times. The latest: investigator\u2019s refusal dated 22\/03\/2019; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 09\/04\/2019; Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 21\/05\/2019.<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13.<\/td>\n57826\/19<\/p>\n

05\/11\/2019<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich BEK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1992<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

SIZO-1 Krasnodar<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant was detained in SIZO-1 Krasnodar from 16\/06\/2017 to 28\/09\/2019. On 04\/10\/2019 the applicant was transferred to the correctional facility following his conviction.<\/p>\n

Family members whom the applicant was not allowed to see: wife and son.<\/td>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-1 Krasnodar, 16\/03\/2017 to 28\/09\/2019, opposite-sex operators;<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n

4,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14.<\/td>\n64521\/19<\/p>\n

29\/11\/2019<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Islam Magomed-Salyakhovich BIGAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/p>\n

Khava Lomelyevna TASUYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1975<\/td>\n

Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

IZ-4 Moscow<\/td>\nrefusal of family visits<\/td>\nThe applicants are the wife and a son of B., defendant in criminal proceedings. Has been in pre-trial detention since 29\/03\/2019. On 29\/05\/2019 B.\u2019s counsel submitted an application for a family visit on behalf of the applicants. On the same day the investigator dismissed the request stating, inter alia<\/em>, that B. could use the visit to obstruct the investigation and that the investigator had discretion to authorise visits but was not obliged to do so. According to the applicants, the investigator did not notify them of the refusal in time and they learned about it with a significant delay. On 29\/08\/2019 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaint.<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15.<\/td>\n5191\/20<\/p>\n

20\/12\/2019<\/p>\n

(4 applicants)<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Aleksandr Viktorovich YERKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/p>\n

Yekaterina Vladimirovna YERKHOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/p>\n

Viktor Aleksandrovich YERKHOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/p>\n

Nadezhda Ivanovna YERKHOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/td>\n

Podoplelova Olga Germanovna<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

IZ-4 Rostov-on-Don<\/td>\nrefusal of any type of family visits<\/td>\nthe applicants are a detainee (in pre-trial detention since 02\/02\/2019), his wife and parents<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16.<\/td>\n5879\/20<\/p>\n

16\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Tatyana Vasilyevna KORABELNIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/td>\n

Brovchenko Sergey Vasilyevich<\/p>\n

Moscow<\/td>\n

SIZO-5, Moscow<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the wife of a detainee. Refusals of short-term family visits on 04\/12\/2018, 13\/12\/2018, 21\/12\/2018, 31\/01\/2019. On 27\/03\/2019 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant\u2019s complaint (upheld on appeal on 17\/07\/2019 by the Moscow City Court).<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17.<\/td>\n6588\/20<\/p>\n

17\/01\/2020<\/td>\n

Yelena Yevgenyevna GUSAKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the mother of a detainee<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with<\/p>\n

Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18.<\/td>\n8864\/20<\/p>\n

03\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Viktoriya Viktorovna SKRIPNIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

refusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nfrom 09\/02\/2019 to 15\/10\/2019. At the relevant time the applicant was a fianc\u00e9e of a detainee. The visits were refused for almost a year<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19.<\/td>\n9971\/20<\/p>\n

04\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Ramil Ravilevich ABDULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-5 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nRefusal of visits of a partner throughout the detention in the pre-trial facility (on-going on the date of lodging the application). Grounds for refusal to provide visits: no registered marriage, the applicant\u2019s unwillingness to admit his guilt and to cooperate with the investigation. Attempts to challenge the refusals in courts were to no avail.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20.<\/td>\n13147\/20<\/p>\n

25\/02\/2020<\/td>\n

Daniil Timurovich AKBEROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1997<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Moscow,<\/p>\n

SIZO-5 Moscow,<\/p>\n

SIZO-2 Kaluga Region,<\/p>\n

SIZO-1 Yaroslavl Region,<\/p>\n

SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan<\/td>\n

physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, impossibility of phone communications<\/td>\nThe applicant\u2019s father remained in pre-trial detention facilities till 17\/11\/2019.<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21.<\/td>\n25909\/20<\/p>\n

11\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Irina Anatolyevna ANIKEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the mother of a detainee<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22.<\/td>\n27083\/20<\/p>\n

19\/03\/2020<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Yelena Anatolyevna VYSOTSKAYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1970<\/p>\n

Denis Yuryevich VYSOTSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich<\/p>\n

Taganrog<\/td>\n

SIZO-2, Rostov Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the mother of a detainee, refusal of visiting in the period: 11\/11\/2019-22\/02\/2020<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23.<\/td>\n32403\/20<\/p>\n

07\/06\/2020<\/td>\n

Yevgeniya Victorovna ANIKEYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the wife of a detainee<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
24.<\/td>\n34205\/20<\/p>\n

22\/07\/2020<\/td>\n

Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich DVIRNIK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1990<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-5 Moscow<\/p>\n

SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic<\/p>\n

SIZO-5 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\n

physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits<\/td>\nFrom 29\/10\/2015 to 11\/02\/2021 \u2013 period under examination. From 2018 to 2020 there was a limitation on the frequency of the short-term visits for the applicant\u2019s partner and child.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
25.<\/td>\n2658\/21<\/p>\n

17\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

Svetlana Petrovna MIROSHNICHENKO<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the wife of a detainee. He has been in pre-trial detention since 10\/08\/2020 (only two visits were granted). Her relevant complaints were dismissed by domestic courts.<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
26.<\/td>\n8681\/21<\/p>\n

09\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

Mariya Aleksandrovna SHILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1<\/p>\n

St Petersburg<\/td>\n

physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant\u2019s husband was detained in SIZO between 30\/03\/2016 and 09\/09\/2020. Visits were limited by one hour, there had been a glass barrier preventing from any physical contact, and in the presence of the SIZO staff member.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
27.<\/td>\n20628\/21<\/p>\n

01\/04\/2021<\/td>\n

Yelena Adolfovna VASHUKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nthe applicant is the mother of a detainee<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
28.<\/td>\n32409\/21<\/p>\n

24\/05\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilnaz Ildusovich ZABBAROV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich<\/p>\n

Orel<\/td>\n

SIZO-1 Orenburg<\/td>\nlimitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits<\/td>\nSince April 2020 – restrictions in visits; since November 2020 – no visits.<\/td>\nArt. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (via a video link), from 09\/04\/2020 to 23\/03\/2021<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
29.<\/td>\n34680\/21<\/p>\n

28\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Komil Karimovich MATIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant has been detained since 14\/03\/2017. On 05\/02\/2021 he was convicted by the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court. On 05\/04\/2021 the Appellate Military Court refused to grant the request of the applicant\u2019s wife for a long-term visit in SIZO-2.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30.<\/td>\n36406\/21<\/p>\n

28\/06\/2021<\/td>\n

Elkhan Novruz ogly SHIRIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\u00a0SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant requested long-term visits on several occasions from the SIZO administration and judges but to no avail. He is in detention on remand since 01\/01\/2020.<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
31.<\/td>\n36524\/21<\/p>\n

09\/07\/2021<\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Irina Ivanovna DOMANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1984<\/p>\n

Aleksey Leonidovich KRISHTOPA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/td>\n

Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna<\/p>\n

Strasbourg<\/td>\n

SIZO-1 Stavropol Region<\/td>\nlimitation on the frequency of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicants are non-married long-term partners. The second applicant has been in detention since 04\/03\/2021.<\/p>\n

The applicants were allowed short-term visits on 10\/03\/2021 and 18\/03\/2021. Later, on 25\/03\/2021, 28\/04\/2021, 06\/05\/2021, 18\/05\/2021, 27\/05\/2021, they were refused without any explanation<\/td>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
32.<\/td>\n43710\/21<\/p>\n

09\/08\/2021<\/td>\n

Artem Arslanovich KHAMIDULLIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-2 Tatarstan Republic<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nRefusals of short-term family visits with his mother, wife, sister. Several refusals of investigator, last one on 15\/12\/2020 (upheld on 30\/07\/2021 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic)<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
33.<\/td>\n49163\/21<\/p>\n

29\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Svetlana Petrovna PYATANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant\u2019s husband is detained in SIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia since 06\/02\/2019.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
34.<\/td>\n51492\/21<\/p>\n

27\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Kirill Valentinovich KUCHINSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is in pre-trial detention since 26\/05\/2015 \u2013 on-going on the date of lodging application with the Court. He complains about refusal of long-term visits from his mother and about modalities of short-term meetings with her<\/td>\nArt. 14 – prohibition of discrimination – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards modalities of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – appeal against the decision by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 16\/09\/2021 considered by the Second Appellate Court on 21\/10\/2021; appeal against the decision of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 24\/12\/2021 was examined by the Second Appellate Court on 03\/02\/2022;<\/p>\n

Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – SIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region, 01\/10\/2021-pending as of 16\/09\/2022, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and\/or shower room<\/td>\n

4,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
35.<\/td>\n51669\/21<\/p>\n

04\/10\/2021<\/td>\n

Valentina Anatolyevna DANILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the mother of a detainee. Her requests to visit her son were to no avail. The latest reply from FSIN was on 29\/06\/2021; the period of detention: 28\/05\/2015 \u2013 pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
36.<\/td>\n58607\/21<\/p>\n

14\/09\/2021<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Aleksandrovich AGEYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1<\/p>\n

Tver Region<\/td>\n

refusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is serving his life sentence in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region.<\/p>\n

In August 2019 the app. was transferred to SIZO-1 in the Tver Region to take part in another set of criminal proceedings against him. On 02\/08\/2021 the applicant lodged a request to grant a long-term visit with his wife, who lives in Tver. The request was dismissed.<\/td>\n

Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
37.<\/td>\n4078\/22<\/p>\n

30\/12\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilnur Amirovich FAYZULIN<\/strong><\/p>\n

1994<\/td>\n

Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna<\/p>\n

Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\n

SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nNo long-term family visits was allowed pending criminal proceedings (on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court)<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
38.<\/td>\n7144\/22<\/p>\n

12\/01\/2022<\/td>\n

Sabina Sergeyevna KARETNIKOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the wife of a detainee.<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits.<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
39.<\/td>\n17635\/22<\/p>\n

09\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Georgiy Vladimirovich LADARIYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nDetention since 15\/01\/2015<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
40.<\/td>\n21811\/22<\/p>\n

08\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Aleksandr Andreyevich VASHUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1989<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is a brother of a detainee. On 18\/01\/2022 the FSIN refused a long\u2011term family visit.<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
41.<\/td>\n25229\/22<\/p>\n

28\/04\/2022<\/td>\n

Nadezhda Viktorovna GERASIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the mother of a detainee<\/td>\nArt. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;<\/p>\n

Art. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n

3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
42.<\/td>\n29351\/22<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Sergeyevich ZHIGULSKIY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nPeriod under examination: since 08\/08\/2019 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
43.<\/td>\n30067\/22<\/p>\n

10\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Dmitriy Yevgenyevich SUKHORUKOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/td>\n

Sukhorukova Yaroslavna Nikolayevna<\/p>\n

Myskhako<\/td>\n

SIZO-3, Novorossiysk<\/td>\nphysical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nConviction on 24\/03\/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, upheld on appeal, 18\/11\/2021 by the Krasnodar Regional Court.<\/td>\nArt. 3 – use of metal cages and\/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Krasnodar Regional Court between 20\/07\/2021 and 18\/11\/2021 via video-link from SIZO-3, Novorossiysk; relevant judgment date 18\/11\/2021, Krasnodar Regional Court<\/td>\n9,750<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
44.<\/td>\n30978\/22<\/p>\n

16\/06\/2022<\/td>\n

Yuliya Olegovna TARKHANOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1983<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Moscow<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of telephone conversations, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nThe applicant is the wife of a detainee, period under examination since 17\/02\/2021 and on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\n<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
45.<\/td>\n35019\/22<\/p>\n

20\/05\/2022<\/td>\n

Andrey Igorevich IVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1996<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nSIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk<\/td>\nrefusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short\u2011term family visits<\/td>\nVisits from mother, brother and grandmother, the period under examination: since 07\/08\/2019 and on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court<\/td>\nArt. 14 – in conjunction with Art. 8 – discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits<\/td>\n3,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[i]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n