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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s69AD57A4 { width:19.88pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 55341/17 Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV against Russia and 12 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 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. 3.     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 4.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 5.     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). 6.     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. 7.     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   Representative’s name and location Detention facility Family member Place of residence of the family member Other complaints under well-established case-law                    55341/17 15/07/2017   and   13857/20 28/02/2020 (12 applicants)   Household   Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 1982 Kazimagomed Nurmagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 1942 Feroza Kazimagomedovna GADZHITAYEVA 1968 Marifa Kazimagomedovna MIRZABEKOVA 1973 Alim Semedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 2014 Arsen Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 1969 Rafik Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 1971 Said Semedovich NURMAGOMEDOV 2011 Anisa Semedovna NURMAGOMEDOVA 2010 Irade Nizamutdinova NURMAGOMEDOVA 1986 Suna Gasratovna NURMAGOMEDOVA 1943 Zaynab Semedovna NURMAGOMEDOVA 2013 Zarifa Kazimagomedovna SHAKHSINOVA 1976 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region twelve applicants are close relatives of Mr Semed Nurmagomedov - a detainee and the applicant in case no.   55341/17, they are parents, wife, children, siblings of Mr   Semed Nurmagomedov Aleksino, Moscow Region, Dagestan Republic   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    7897/18 30/01/2018 Aslan Magomedovich CHERKESOV 1984 Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich Kazan IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region / Prison Minusinsk - Krasnoyarsk Region mother, wife, child, sister Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkariya Republic                      14524/18 16/03/2018 (3 applicants) Household Alim Borisovich BITOKHOV 1983 Boris Lelevich BITOKHOV 1945 Lora Karalbiyevna BITOKHOVA 1947 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Balashikha IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region the first applicant is the inmate, the second applicant is his father, the third applicant is his mother Psygansu, Kabardino-Balkariya Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    33067/18 03/07/2018 Fatimat Gitcheyevna TEKAYEVA 1952 Kogan Vanessa Moscow IK-6 Orenburg Region the applicant is the mother of an inmate Khasanya, Kabardino-Balkar Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                      4915/19 29/12/2018 (3 applicants) Household Yakov Vladimirovich TSOY 1973 Yelizoveta KIM 1938 Vasilisa Vladimirovna TSOY 1961 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Moscow IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region the first applicant is an inmate; the second applicant is his sister, and the third applicant is his mother Khabarovsk Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    58975/19 06/11/2019 Household Nabi Ramazanovich GADZHIYEV 1987 Shayman Gurbanayevna GADZHIYEVA 1957 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Balashikha IK-7 Mordoviya Republic the first applicant is an inmate and the second applicant is his mother Chechen Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    62841/19 13/11/2019 Nina Mikhaylovna MIKLASHEVICH 1950 Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich Krasnodar IK-6 Orenburg Region the applicant is the mother of a detainee Novorossiysk, Krasnodar Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    64878/19 28/11/2019 Bobomurod Ruzi ugli SUYUNOV 1993 Kudryavtsev Aleksey Gennadyevich Kolpino IK-5 Orenburg Region, from 25/05/2018 to 17/07/2020,   IK-9 Orenburg Region, from 17/07/2020 wife, child St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    25282/20 01/06/2020 Aleksandr Ivanovich DEVYATOV 1976 Yermakov Vladislav Yevgenyevich Troitsk IK-6 Khabarovsk Region children, sister, wife Chelyabinsk                   32068/20 24/07/2020 (9 applicants) Household Tamara Yakubovna IBRAGIMOVA 1953 Yunus Imranovich KHADZHIYEV 2006 Yusha Smailovich KHADZHIYEV 1950 Ayshat Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA 2005 Khadizha Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA 2014 Khava Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA 2010 Malika Mukhadinovna KHADZHIYEVA 1976 Petimat Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA 2008 Safia Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA 2011 Kogan Vanessa Moscow IK-12 Nizhniy Novgorod Region the applicants are mother, wife and six children of Mr   Imran Khadzhiyev, a detainee Grozny, Chechen Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                 32362/20 10/07/2020 Household Veronika Vadimovna KOROLEVA 1981 Nikolay Valentinovich KOROLEV 1981 Ryabukhina Anastasiya Sergeyevna Strasbourg IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region the first applicant is a detainee, the second applicant is his wife, the first applicant also complained that he is unable to see his parents Moscow                   36847/20 03/07/2020 Oleg Viktorovich SUKHOCHEV 1963 Startseva Tatyana Vladimirovna Alapayevsk Prison in Krasnoyarsk Region children, mother, sister, wife Nizhniy Tagil Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony