CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s3DF5EF88 { width:128.75pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2785BC08 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s2BA64500 { height:31.1pt } .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 } .s23C05D7A { height:24.65pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10565/16 Nikolay Yuryevich BURTSEV against Russia   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31   May 2016, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, restrictions on his contacts with outside world and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Articles   8 and 13 of the Convention (restrictions of contacts with outside world and lack of an effective remedy in that regard) Relying on Articles   8 and   13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about severe restrictions on his contacts with outside world during his detention after conviction (inability to receive family visits, lack of telephone communications, limited number of parcels, etc.) and about absence of an effective remedy in this regard. As regards the applicant’s grievances under Article   8 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, in order to claim to be the victim of the alleged violation, the applicant should demonstrate at least (1) that he has relatives or other persons with whom he genuinely wishes and attempts to maintain contact in detention and (2) that he has used his rights to visits as frequently as was permitted under domestic law (see Chernenko and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 4246/14 and 4 other applications, §§   42-45, 5   February 2019). Having examined the materials submitted, the Court is unable to conclude that the applicant has demonstrated the existence of relatives or any genuine attempts to maintain contacts with them. It concludes that the applicant cannot claim to be a victim 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. In view of the above finding, the Court further concludes that the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” under Article   8 of the Convention and that Article   13 of the Convention in relation to Article   8 is inapplicable to the case. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3   (a) and   4 of the Convention. Complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility) The applicant informed the Court that he did not intend to pursue the complaint under Article   8 of the Convention as regards his allocation to a remote penal facility. The Court accepts that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the applicant’s complaint under Articles   8   §   1 of the Convention as regards his allocation to a remote penal facility. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention about restrictions of his contacts with outside world and lack of an effective remedy in that regard inadmissible; Decides to strike out the remaining part of the application in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 October 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Peeter Roosma   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, restrictions on contacts with outside world and lack of an effective remedy) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Detention facility Approximate distance between the facility and the place of residence of the family members (in km) 10565/16 31/05/2016 Nikolay Yuryevich BURTSEV 1988 IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region 2,000