CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s301E5582 { width:146.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sD85BBB70 { width:24.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41266/17 Ramazan Vladimirovich KHALIZOV and others against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility to the Russian Government (“the Government”) initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in that office Mr   M. Vinogradov; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicants are prisoners serving prison sentences of various terms, including life sentences, and their family members. The relevant details pertaining to each application are set out in the table below. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr   Egle Denis Sergeyevich, a lawyer practising in Krasnoyarsk. 3.     The applicants complain of the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. Some of the applicants (see the appended table) also argue that they do not have an effective domestic remedy at the national level to complain about such allocation or transfer. 4.     On 28 October 2021 the Government submitted information about the amendments to the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the “CES”) and asked to treat the new legislative provisions as introducing a new remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaints. They asked the Court to declare the complaints under Article   8 of the Convention inadmissible for the applicants’ failure to exhaust an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances. Some of the applicants submitted comments, questioning the effectiveness of the newly introduced remedy. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 6.     The Court reiterates that in its recent decisions of Dadusenko and Others v. Russia ((dec.), no. 36027/19 and 3 others, 7 September 2021) and Tamamshev and Others v. Russia ((dec.) [Committee], nos. 57368/19 and 59831/19, §§ 22-23, 7 September 2021), it has accepted that the CES as amended on 1 April 2020 (effective as of 29   September 2020) provided for an effective remedy for the complaints about the breaches of Article 8 of the Convention, as regards allocation or transfer of prisoners to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, and, having dismissed those complaints for the applicants’ failure to exhaust a new remedy, it has declared that it will apply that approach to all similar applications pending before the Court ( Dadusenko and Others , cited above, §§   25 ‑ 34). 7.     In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of these complaints. It therefore considers that, in so far as the applicants have lodged prima facie well ‑ founded complaints, the amended CES affords them an opportunity to obtain adequate redress by lodging a transfer request with the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences and/or challenging the proportionality of the refusal of transfer in court. Accordingly, the applicants should exhaust this remedy before their complaints can be examined by the Court. It follows that these complaints under Article 8 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 8.     The Court has found above that the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal which they have been required to use for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, their complaints under Article   13 of the Convention must be rejected as being manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 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 2 June 2022.     Olga Chernishova   Darian Pavli   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 Other complaints under well-established case-law                    41266/17 20/05/2017 (4 applicants)   and   78933/17 11/10/2017 Household Ramazan Vladimirovich KHALIZOV 1983 Ali Ramazanovich KHALIZOV 2012 Khalid Ramazanovich KHALIZOV 2013 Nargiza Abdulmazhitovna KHALIZOVA 1982 Yasira Ramazanovna KHALIZOVA 2010 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region the first applicant is an inmate, the second and the third applicants are his children, and the fourth applicant is his wife   the fifth applicant is the daughter of the first applicant Lermontov, Stavropol Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    52669/17 15/07/2017 Andrey Andreyevich MAKEYEV 1966 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region child, wife Chita Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    53067/17 15/07/2017 Shamil Magomedovich SIDIKBEGOV 1979 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region mother, wife, children Podolsk, Moscow Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    54186/17 15/07/2017 Vasiliy Vasilyevich LUKASH 1958 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region wife Krasnodar Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    54654/17 15/07/2017 Aleksey Gennadyevich YANIYEV 1991 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region father, sister, brother Mishkino, Bashkortostan Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    56010/17 15/07/2017 Household Viktor Viktorovich OTROSHCHENKO 1993 Natalya Lvovna OTROSHCHENKO 1972 IK-15 OIK-30 Krasnoyarsk Region the first applicant is an inmate; the second applicant is his mother Shilka, Zabaykalskiy Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    77535/17 20/10/2017 Akhror Abdulfatoyevich SATTOROV 1985 IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region children, wife Lobnya, Moscow Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony