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 } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 55690/19 Valentina Gennadyevna ROGOZINA and Others against Russia and 10 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 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 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). 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. 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   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     55690/19 14/10/2019 (4 applicants) Valentina Gennadyevna ROGOZINA 1957 Svetlana Gennadyevna MITROFANOVA 1960 Viktor Nikolayevich ROGOZIN 1977 Karina Viktorovna ROGOZINA 2004 IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region the first applicant is the mother of the fourth applicant who is a detainee, the second applicant is the aunt of the fourth applicant; the third applicant is the daughter of the fourth applicant Shumikha, Kurgan Region 2,500 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony     13633/20 25/02/2020 Pavel Nikolayevich YEMANOV 1976 IK-6 Orenburg Region The applicant is a detainee, his relative is his mother Usolye-Sibirskoye, Irkutsk Region 4,000       16644/20 16/03/2020 Viktor Ellinovich LOGVINENKO 1970 IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region The applicant is a detainee, his relative is his sister Khabarovsk 7,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     21255/20 14/04/2020 Vitaliy Nikolayevich MOROZOV 1969 IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The applicant is a detainee, his brother is the sole relative, the applicant’s parents were stripped of parental rights; the applicant and his brother were placed in an orphanage; the applicant enclosed letters from his brother Kazan, Tatarstan Republic 2,500 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     27321/20 26/05/2020 Dmitriy Leonidovich LUKHTAN 1983 IK-2 Perm Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, brother, grandmother Belgorod Region 3,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     29596/20 07/04/2020 Aleksey Mingishevich KHABBASOV 1980 IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The applicant is a detainee, his relatives are: mother, father, sister Orenburg Region 2,500 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     39823/20 18/08/2020 (7 applicants) Tatyana Mingishevna POKOLEVA 1988 Marina Mingishevna BERTLYUYEVA 1976 Mingish Khasanovich KHABBASOV 1940 Alla Alekseyevna KHABBASOVA 1985 Yelena Grigoryevna KHABBASOVA 1948 Lidiya Mingisheva MRYASOVA 1971 Natalya Mingishevna SLYAVCHINOVA 1978 IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region, IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The applicants are all relatives (parents, sisters, wives, children) of 3 detainees Orenburg Region <2,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     50607/20 21/10/2020 Izosim Sergeyevich TIMOFEYEV 1993 Valentina Petrovna TIMOFEYEVA 1945   IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region The second applicant is the grandmother of the first applicant Volgograd Region 3,400 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony     51247/20 19/10/2020 Denis Vyacheslavovich KRYTSYN 1983 IK-18 Yamalo Nenetskiy Avtonomnyy Okrug The applicant is a detainee, his relative is his mother Shakhty, Rostov Region 5,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony   3238/21 01/12/2020 Galina Nikolayevna VATKINA 1951 Sergey Viktorovich VATKIN 1970 IK-6 Khabarovsk Region The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant, a detainee Radishchev, Irkutsk Region 3,000     8397/21 11/01/2020 Albina Vladimirovna POLICHEVA 1969 IK-56 Sverdlovsk Region The applicant is the mother of a detainee Irkutsk 3,000 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote correctional colony