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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22326859 { width:58.23pt; display:inline-block } .s7FB0030E { width:111.07pt; 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 } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s69AD57A4 { width:19.88pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 71767/17 Sergey Yuristovich ZARIPOV and others 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   Detention facility Family member Place of residence of the family member Other complaints                    71767/17 23/09/2017 (5 applicants) Household Sergey Yuristovich ZARIPOV 1966 Irina Vasilyevna ZARIPOVA 1966 Mariya Andreyevna ZARIPOVA 1936 Nadezhda Sergeyevna ZARIPOVA 1990 Veronika Sergeyevna ZARIPOVA 2001   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region the first applicant is an inmate, the second applicant is his wife, the third applicant is his mother, the fourth and the fifth applicants are his children St Petersburg / Panevo, Novgorod Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    37706/18 25/07/2018 Household Yuliya Alekseyevna CHERNAKOVA 1974 Artur Yuryevich SEYDGAZOV 2014   IK-6 Khabarovsk Region the applicants are the sister and the child of a detainee Mr Y. Makhnov, (application no. 46429/16) Chelyabinsk Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    48635/18 04/10/2018   and   50615/19 02/09/2019     Household Galina Anatolyevna CHAKRYAN 1959   Yekaterina Anatolyevna SCHASTLIVAYA 1984   IK-6 Khabarovsk Region the first applicant is the mother of a detainee the second applicant is the wife of a detainee Tyumen, Tyumensk Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    10538/19 30/10/2018 Household Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV 1987 Galina Ivanovna ZAYERKO 1936   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region the first applicant is an inmate serving his sentence; the second applicant is his grandmother Mineralniye Vody, Stavropol Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    38405/19 08/07/2019 (3 applicants) Household Yelena Gennadyevna MANDRITSKAYA 1974 Zinayda Timofeyevna BERDUTO 1939 Olga Alekseyevna DAVYDOVA 1989   IK-6 Khabarovsk Region the first applicant is the mother an inmate who serves his sentence, the second applicant is the daughter of the inmate who serves his sentence, the third applicant is the sister of the inmate who serves his sentence Angarsk, Irkutsk Region                      59599/19 05/11/2019 Anastasiya Anatolyevna CHERNYSHEVA 1983   IK-6 Khabarovsk Region the applicant is the wife of a detainee Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatiya Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    3440/20 13/04/2020 (1 applicant)   and   20146/20 14/02/2020 (2 applicants)   Household Valentina Aleksandrovna MURASHEVA 1960 Stanislav Sergeyevich MURASHEV 1983 Yekaterina Alekseyevna MURASHEVA 1990 IK-1 OIK-2 Perm Region the first applicant is the mother of a detainee, the second applicant is a detainee, the third applicant is the wife of a detainee; the second applicant also complains that he is unable to see his child and mother Zheleznodorozhniy, Balashikha, Moscow Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    12160/20 28/01/2020 Vladimir Gennadyevich YEGOROV 1963   IK-6 Orenburg Region the applicant is the brother of the detainee Krasnodar Region Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                    13884/20 31/01/2020 Oksana Vladimirovna CHIKISHEVA 1974   IK-8 Komi Republic the applicant is the mother of a detainee Mr N. Butkeyev (application no. 46308/19) St Petersburg Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony                 36543/20 22/07/2020 Salavat Mukhamedovich MULLAYAROV 1975   IK-37 Perm Region sister Moscow                   46980/20 23/09/2020 Tamerlan Akhmedovich DZHAMULAYEV 1982   IK-25 Komi Republic wife, sisters Chechen Republic Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony