CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 juin 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 } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 68808/16 Fedor Nikolayevich GONCHAROV against Russia and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Andreas Zünd,   Mikhail Lobov, 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 deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. FACTS 3.     The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of their or their relative’s (a detainee) allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. 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 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. alleged violation of ArticleS 8 AND 13 of the Convention 6.     The applicants complained of their or their relative’s allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. They relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 8 “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... 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.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 7.     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 that the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (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 (see Dadusenko and Others , cited above, §§   25 ‑ 34). 8.     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. 9.     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 21 July 2022.     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 Representative’s name and location 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) Other complaints under well-established case-law     68808/16 09/11/2016 Fedor Nikolayevich GONCHAROV 1982 Gavrilitsa Irina Aleksandrovna Krasnoyarsk OIK-30 IK-15 Krasnoyarsk Region, IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: wife, child, parents Nerchinsk, Zabaykalskiy Region 2,400 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility     9245/20 31/01/2020 Household Rustam Shamsayevich TAIPOV 1982 Zulay Magamedovna TAIPOVA 1946 Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna Balashikha IK-49 Komi Republic The first applicant is a detainee, the second applicant is his mother Grozny, Chechen Republic 3,300 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility     13510/20 28/02/2020 (6 applicants) Household Soyelma Rinchindorzhiyevna SHAGZHIYEVA 1971 Daba Sergeyevich SHAGZHIYEV 2010 Asel Asilbekovna SHAGZHIYEVA 2015 Nomik Sergeyevna SHAGZHIYEVA 2004 Yevgeniya Sergeyevna SHAGZHIYEVA 1997 Yuliya Sergeyevna SHAGZHIYEVA 1995 Miller Irina Vladimirovna Kansk IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region The applicants are all relatives of a detainee (wife, children, granddaughter) Gegetuy, Republic of Buryatiya >2,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility     26584/20 03/06/2020 Dmitriy Petrovich SEMENOV 1979     IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: father, mother, child, sister, wife Novocheboksarsk 3,400 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -     36773/20 04/08/2020 Roman Pavlovich BURDUKOVSKIY 1984 Burdukovskaya Yevgeniya Pavlovna Gelendzhik IK-22 Primorye Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives is his mother Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia 3,700 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -     38866/20 10/08/2020   and   39471/20 19/08/2020 Household Lidiya Alekseyevna MOSKALEVA 1955   Viktor Aleksandrovich MOSKALEV 1977     IK-8 Komi Republic The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant, who is a detainee Balashikha, Moscow region 1,500 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -     49099/20 22/10/2020 Dmitriy Nikolayevich GUSHCHIN 1979     IK-15 Nizhniy Novgorod Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, sister Uliyanovsk, Uliyanovsk Region 465 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -     5291/21 28/12/2020 Marina Vladimirovna FEDOTOVA 1979     IK-8 Komi Republic The applicant is a sister of a detainee Nizhniy Novgorod 1,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -     11095/21 02/02/2021 Natalya Yuryevna LAMEKO 1973     IK-1 Komi Republic The applicant is a detainee, her relatives is her husband Moscow 1,300 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility -