THIRD SECTION
\nCASE OF RESIN v. RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 9348\/14)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 December 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n18\/03\/2019<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Resin v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Having deliberated in private on 27 November 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 9348\/14) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Russian national, Mr Andrey Igorevich Resin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 17 December 2013.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A. Molostov, a lawyer practising in the Chelyabinsk Region. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained about excessive restrictions on family visits.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 March 2017the Government were given notice of the above complaint and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissiblepursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1974in Khabarovsk and is serving a life sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0From 25 May 2012 to 10 April 2014 the applicant was held in penal colony IK-56 in the Sverdlovsk Region. He was able to have five short visits in 2013 and one short visit in 2014.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 July 2013 the applicant asked the governor to allow him a shortmeeting with four adult relatives, his mother, sister and two cousins. He also asked for the meeting to be held without a glass partition between him and his visitors or the presence of a prison officer. The governor signed his decision on the petition: \u201cRejected. Not allowed under the Code of Execution of Sentences\u201d.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0From 15 May to 16 July 2014 the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO-1 in Khabarovsk\u2013 where his family still lived \u2013 to take part in another investigation.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On the day after his arrival at the prison, he asked the prison governor to authorise a short meeting with four family members \u2013 his sister, two cousins and aunt \u2013 without a physical partition between him and the visitors or the presence of prison officers. By a letter of 21 May 2014, the governor rejected his request. He pointed out that, pursuant to section 18 of the Pre\u2011trial Detention Act, visits are subject to written authorisation from the official or authority in charge of the criminal case. Furthermore, the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons required that visiting rooms be equipped with a physical partition and that visits be supervised by a prison officer.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 June 2014 the applicant asked the governor to authorise a long meeting with his mother and sister. He relied on Article 89 of the Code of Execution of Sentences (CES) and emphasised that the remand prison was equipped with rooms for long-stay visits which could be used by convicted prisoners serving their sentence in that prison. Three days later the governor replied that the applicable law did not make a provision for long-stay visits in respect of remand prisoners. He referred the applicant to Article 77.1 of the CES.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the criminal case to authorise short visits from his family members. On 11\u00a0June and 1 August 2014 the investigator and the deputy head of the investigations department, respectively, rejected his request. They informed the applicant that \u201cthe authorities in charge of the investigation were not preventing [him] from having short visits from his family members as long as it did not contradict Russian law, including the Code of Execution of Sentences\u201d.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant challenged the restrictions on family visits before a court of general jurisdiction. According to the information from the Government, all of his challenges were dismissed as unfounded.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0According to a certificate issued by the governor on 27\u00a0April 2017, the applicant did not have any short or long-stay visits during his time in the Khabarovsk remand prison.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Article 77.1 of the Code of Execution of Sentences (CES) regulates the manner in which convicted prisoners may be involved in further investigative actions. Paragraph 1 establishes that they may be transferred to a remand prison for that purpose. Paragraph 3 specifies that they exercise their right to family visits in accordance with the provisions of the Pre-trial Detention Act.Section 18 of the Pre-trial Detention Act (Federal Law\u00a0no.\u00a0103-FZ of 15 July 1995) provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cSubject to written authorisation from the official or authority in charge of the criminal case, suspects and defendants may have no more than two visits per month from their family members and other persons, each visit lasting for up to three hours.<\/p>\n Visits from family members and other persons shall be supervised by an officer of the custodial facility; should there be an attempt to pass prohibited objects, substances or food, or to communicate information capable of preventing the truth from being established in the criminal proceedings or contributing to the commission of an offence, the visit will be cut short.\u201d<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Article 89 of the CES provides that convicted prisoners are entitled to short visits lasting for up to four hours and to long-stay visits of up to three days, on the prison premises (paragraph 1). \u00a0A short visit takes place in the presence of a prison officer; prisoners may stay together with their family members during long visits (paragraph\u00a02).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Section XVI of the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons, as approved by the Ministry of Justice\u2019s Order no. 189 of 14 October 2005, governs the arrangements for organising visits in remand prisons. Rule 139 establishes the following limitations: no more than two visits per month; the written authorisation to be valid for one visit only; no more than two adult visitors each time. Rule 143 specifies that meetings should be held in purpose-built rooms equipped with a partition or separator that prevents any objects from being passed but does not obstruct oral or visual contact. Detainees may talk to visitors on an intercom system and their discussion may be listened to by prison guards.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Section XIV of the Rules of Internal Order in Penal Facilities, as approved by the Ministry of Justice\u2019s Order no. 205 of 3 November 2005,as in force at the material time, described the arrangements for long-stay and short visits in penal facilities. Rule 74 set the number of adult family members who could pay a short or long-stay visit to a convicted prisoner at no more than two people. Rule 78 providedthat visitors who refused a search of their body and belongings wouldnot be allowed to have a long\u2011stay visit. The long-stay visit would be replaced with a short visit.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The current version of the Rules of Internal Order in Penal Facilities was approved by the Ministry of Justice\u2019s Order no. 295 of 16\u00a0December 2016. Rule 70 establishes that short visits are conducted under the supervision of a prison officer, while long-stay visits allow prisoners to live together with their family members. The number of long-stay visitors is determined by reference to the accommodation capacity of long-stay visit rooms and the visiting schedule. Rule 78 was reproduced verbatim in the new version.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of various restrictions on visiting arrangements in the penal facility and remand prison. Article 8 reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone has the right to respect for his … family life …<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0There 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the arrangements for short visits in the IK-56 penal facility had been compatible with the requirements of the Code of Execution of Sentences (Article 89 \u00a7 2) and the Rules of Internal Order in Penal Facilities. The visiting arrangements in the Khabarovsk remand prison were likewise compatible with the provisions of Article 77.1 of the Code and the Rules of Internal Order in Remand Prisons. The Government concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Existence of interference<\/em><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0As is well established in the Court\u2019s case-law, on imprisonment a person forfeits the right to liberty but continues to enjoy all other fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right to respect for family life, so that any restriction on those rights must be justified in each individual case.Detention entails inherent limitations on his family life, and some measure of control of the detainee\u2019s contacts with the outside world is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention. However, it is an essential part of a prisoner\u2019s right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him to maintain contact with his close family (see Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758\/05, \u00a7 39, 23 February 2012, andKhoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 116-17, ECHR 2015).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0An interference with a prisoner\u2019s right to respect for his or her family life does not need to amount to an outright ban on family visits, but can consist in various other measures taken by the prison authorities. The Court has thus found that limitations on the frequency and duration of family visits, supervision of those visits and the subjection of a detainee to special visiting arrangements constitute an interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Van der Ven v.\u00a0the\u00a0Netherlands, no.\u00a050901\/99, \u00a7 69, ECHR 2003-II; Klamecki v.\u00a0Poland (no. 2), no.\u00a031583\/96, \u00a7 144, 3 April 2003; Ku\u010dera v. Slovakia, no.\u00a048666\/99, \u00a7\u00a0127, 17 July 2007; Ferla v. Poland, no. 55470\/00, \u00a7 38, 20\u00a0May 2008; and Vidish v. Russia, no. 53120\/08, \u00a7 36, 15 March 2016).<\/p>\n
\nBrankoLubarda,
\nHelen Keller,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova,
\nGeorgios A. Serghides,
\nJolienSchukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n