CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA90BDD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 30924/20 Ivan Nikolayevich SPIRIDONOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 8 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations) The applicants alleged a violation of their right to respect for family life on account of the lack of practical opportunities for prison visits stemming from decision to allocate prisoners to remote penal facilities and subsequent inability to obtain transfers to other facilities. They relied on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ... .   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.” The Government argued that the applications should be declared inadmissible for the applicant’s failure to demonstrate a wish to maintain contact with their relatives. They had not exchanged letters or telephone calls with them. On rare occasions they had received parcels from them. The Court reiterates that it is an essential part of the prisoners’ right to respect for family life that the prison authorities assist them in maintaining contact with their close family. It is also an essential part of both private life and the rehabilitation of prisoners that their contact with the outside world be maintained as far as practicable, in order to facilitate their reintegration in society on release (see A. v. the United Kingdom , no. 9054/80, Commission decision of 8   October 1982, Decisions and Reports (DR) 30, p.   113). Nevertheless, in order to claim to be the victim of the violation of the right to respect for private and family life set out in Article   8 of the Convention, in the context of statutory restrictions on family visits for prisoners, an applicant should demonstrate, in the first place, a genuine wish and attempts to maintain contact with relatives or other persons while being incarcerated (see Chernenko and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 4246/14 and 4   other applications, 5   February 2019). Having examined the materials submitted by the applicants in the present case, the Court discerns no evidence that would show a genuine wish or attempts on the applicants’ part to maintain contacts with their relatives while incarcerated. As pointed out by the Government, the applicants did not keep contact with their relatives through letters or telephone calls. The fact that they received occasional parcels is insufficient for the Court to draw a conclusion to the contrary. Regard being had to the above, the Court considers that the applicants cannot be said to have been directly affected by the authorities’ decisions complained of and, therefore, cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4. Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under Article   13 of the Convention. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   8 § 1 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Detention facility Family member Place of residence of the family member Approximate distance between the facility and the place of residence of the family members (in km)     30924/20 25/08/2020 Ivan Nikolayevich SPIRIDONOV 1987     IK-8 Komi Republic brother, mother, sister, niece, stepfather Porkhov, Pskov Region 1,860     31067/20 19/05/2020 Grigoriy Yuryevich PETROV 1973     IK-8 Komi Republic wife, child St Petersburg 1,700     31463/20 15/06/2020 Pavel Aleksandrovich GLAZIN 1980     IK-8 Komi Republic wife, child Kalach-on-Don, Volgograd Region 3,000