CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 août 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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7269AE77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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. 20230/18 Yuriy Viktorovich ROMANENKO and Others against Russia and 7 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   August 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS and Procedure The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. 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 Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Alleged violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention The applicants complained of their or their relative’s (a detainee) 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 and family 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.” 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 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 the 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). 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. 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. Remaining complaints In application no. 56918/18 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   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 15 September 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     20230/18 07/04/2018 (7 applicants) Household Yuriy Viktorovich ROMANENKO 1966   Yelena Aleksandrovna AGUREYEVA 1977   Valentina Dmitriyevna KORYABINA 1930   Aleksandra Yuryevna ROMANENKO 2006   Alena Yuryevna ROMANENKO 1989   Daniil Vadimovich ROMANENKO 2006   Olga Alekseyevna ROMANENKO 1966 Romanenko Lyudmila Viktorovna Tulun IK-6 Khabarovsk Region The first applicant is a detainee, the remaining applicants are: wife, children, grandson and aunt Tulun, Irkutsk Region 3,400 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote facility     56918/18 09/11/2018 Anatoliy Leonidovich POROSHIN 1989 Zakharova Larisa Viktorovna Yekaterinburg IK-5 OIK-36 Krasnoyarsk Region The applicant is a detainee, his relative is his father Novaya Lyalya, Sverdlovsk Region 2,600 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony       50117/19 16/09/2019 Viktor Gennadyevich BARDAKOV 1979     IK-8 Komi Republic The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: wife, child, sister Volgograd Region 3,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony     64106/19 22/11/2019 Roman Leonidovich CHERNYSHEV 1988     IK-6 Khabarovsk Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, wife, child, father, brother, sister Zaigrayevskiy district, Republic of Buryatia   3,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony     18123/20 18/03/2020 Viktor Aleksandrovich MYSIN 1978     IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, father, wife, children, brother Amursk, Khabarovsk Region   >8,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote facility     19481/20 12/05/2020 Nurlan Vyacheslavovich USHAKOV 1988     IK-5 Vologda Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, brother, sister Orsk, Orenburg Region 2,200 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony     49619/20 18/11/2020 Murat Kachakovich AKAVOV 1968     IK-5 Krasnoyarsk Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: wife, child, brother, sister Moscow Region 4,000       8336/21 15/01/2021 Mikhail Sergeyevich ZAKHARIN 1979     IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: brother, mother, sister, wife, child Bratsk, Irkutsk Region 4,500