CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; 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 } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3BE577 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7368EE06 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; 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 } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }     FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PONOMAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12205/18 and 44 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 23 November 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ponomarev and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Armen Harutyunyan,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: 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. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre ‑ trial detention facilities. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the 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 judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2   others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17   January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention. 8.     In the leading cases of Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13   February 2018, Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v.   Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020, and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with law” and that the physical separation of the applicants from their visitors by means of a glass partition cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   8 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well ‑ established case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.   32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Idalov v. Russia   [GC], no.   5826/03, §§   154 ‑ 58, 161 ‑ 65, 22   May 2012, as regards an excessive length of detention review proceedings; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 114-56, 9   April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees and absence of an effective remedy to complain about poor transport conditions; Gorlov and   Others v. Russia , nos. 27057/06 and   2   others, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Pavlova v.   Russia , no.   8578/12, §§   31 ‑ 33, 18   February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits; and Chaldayev , cited above, §§   69-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre ‑ trial detention facilities). 12.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaint lodged by Mr Zabbarov (application no.   32409/21) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no.   10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint lodged by Mr Zabbarov (application no.   32409/21) under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his placement in a metal cage in the courtroom Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points . Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Detention facility Type of restriction Other relevant information Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household (in euros) [1]     12205/18 09/02/2018 Sergey Aleksandrovich PONOMAREV 1978     SIZO-2 Moscow refusal of long-term family visits The applicant was detained in a remand prison between March 2014 and 19/12/2017 without long-term family visits   3,500     13413/18 07/03/2018 Andrey Yuryevich KULEV 1977     SIZO-2 Volgograd Region limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits 10/06/2017 - end date unspecified (on-going as of the date of introduction of the application with the Court)   3,500     18894/18 05/04/2018 Yevgeniy Anatolyevich GUSEV 1983     SIZO-2 Vologda Region,   SIZO-3 Vologda Region limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, limitation on the length of short-term family visits, glass partition, poor quality of phone lines, refusal of long-term family visits, lack of ventilation On many occasions the applicant had short-term visits. On 12/05/2017 a court authorised a long-term visit but the SIZO-3 administration refused to provide it. The period concerned ends on 15/04/2018 when the applicant left SIZO-3 Vologda Region.   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - 14/03/2012-07/12/2017 and 14/04/2018-24/04/2018; multiple transfers between to/from the courthouse pending criminal proceedings (conditions of transport and detention in a holding cell in the courthouse): transfers in a single-occupancy compartment in a prison van, lack of fresh air, overcrowding;     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 4,500     26925/18 08/05/2018 Vladislav Ravilevich NIZAMUTDINOV 1971     SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits       3,500     40655/18 22/07/2018 Albina Niyazovna GABBAZOVA 1986     SIZO-1 St Petersburg and Leningrad Region refusal of short-term family visits the applicant is a partner of a detainee; she has repeatedly requested a visit since 26/01/2018, but to no avail. She appealed against the refusal under Art. 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and on 22/05/2018, the St   Petersburg City Court upheld the refusal Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500     4881/19 25/12/2018 Nikita Vladimirovich SAMOYLENKO 1997     SIZO-1 Kazan limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits Limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits between 18/07/2017 and 07/09/2018 (during the proceedings in the court of appeal)     Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500     5291/19 26/12/2018 Aleksey Leonidovich UDOVIK 1972     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits The applicant has been in pre-trial detention since 2015, mother, daughter and brother were prohibited from visiting him in 2015 ‑ 2016. It appears that since 2016, when the case was transferred to the trial court, the ban was upheld only in respect of his mother: the applicant was denied phone calls and visits from her, because at some point during the trial he allegedly passed her a letter, stating his view on his criminal prosecution. The ban was in effect when the applicant lodged his application with the Court   3,500     8739/19 01/02/2019 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich POLKOVNIKOV 1989 Artamonov Aleksandr Vasilyevich Moscow SIZO-5 Moscow Region refusal of short-term family visits On 04/08/2018 the applicant’s counsel requested a short-term visit for the applicant’s mother. On 06/07/2018 the investigator refused. The applicant challenged the refusal before a court but to no avail.     Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500     21927/19 02/04/2019 Zinaida Timofeyevna YUSHKINA 1960     SIZO-3 Volgograd Region refusal of any type of family visits (up until 2019), physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visit provided in 2019 (following a decision of 24/12/2018) 02/11/2017 - 19/03/2019 the applicant is the mother of a detainee whom she was not allowed to visit in detention Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   30417/19 20/05/2019 Artur Anatolyevich VALOV 1987     SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic refusal of short-term family visits Between 25/04/2018 and 22/02/2019 the applicant was refused visits from his wife without any explanation. He challenged at least one of the refusals under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (first cassation appeal of 18/01/2019), his complaints were dismissed.   3,500   32238/19 07/06/2019 Mikhail Olegovich YEZHAKOV 1983 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg SIZO-8 Sergiyev-Posad refusal of any type of family visits no visits allowed for the applicant’s mother, 14/09/2018-22/04/2019 Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   43888/19 03/08/2019 Renat Gumarovich GALIMOV 1987     SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic refusal of long-term family visits The applicant was held in pre-trial detention and requested a visit from his mother and wife (on 10/12/2018). On 20/12/2018 the investigator refused. The applicant appealed against the decision. On 22/01/2019 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan dismissed his claims. The applicant requested a visit and appealed several times. The latest: investigator’s refusal dated 22/03/2019; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan, 09/04/2019; Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, 21/05/2019. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   57826/19 05/11/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich BEK 1992 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg SIZO-1 Krasnodar physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant was detained in SIZO-1 Krasnodar from 16/06/2017 to 28/09/2019. On 04/10/2019 the applicant was transferred to the correctional facility following his conviction. Family members whom the applicant was not allowed to see: wife and son. Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-1 Krasnodar, 16/03/2017 to 28/09/2019, opposite-sex operators;   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 4,500   64521/19 29/11/2019 Household   Islam Magomed-Salyakhovich BIGAYEV 1994 Khava Lomelyevna TASUYEVA 1975   Minenkov Sergey Aleksandrovich Moscow IZ-4 Moscow refusal of family visits The applicants are the wife and a son of B., defendant in criminal proceedings. Has been in pre-trial detention since 29/03/2019. On 29/05/2019 B.’s counsel submitted an application for a family visit on behalf of the applicants. On the same day the investigator dismissed the request stating, inter alia , that B. could use the visit to obstruct the investigation and that the investigator had discretion to authorise visits but was not obliged to do so. According to the applicants, the investigator did not notify them of the refusal in time and they learned about it with a significant delay. On 29/08/2019 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicants’ complaint.           Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   5191/20 20/12/2019 (4 applicants) Household Aleksandr Viktorovich YERKHOV 1983 Yekaterina Vladimirovna YERKHOVA 1990 Viktor Aleksandrovich YERKHOV 1960 Nadezhda Ivanovna YERKHOVA 1960 Podoplelova Olga Germanovna Moscow IZ-4 Rostov-on-Don refusal of any type of family visits the applicants are a detainee (in pre-trial detention since 02/02/2019), his wife and parents Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   5879/20 16/01/2020 Tatyana Vasilyevna KORABELNIKOVA 1964 Brovchenko Sergey Vasilyevich Moscow SIZO-5, Moscow refusal of short-term family visits The applicant is the wife of a detainee. Refusals of short-term family visits on 04/12/2018, 13/12/2018, 21/12/2018, 31/01/2019. On 27/03/2019 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint (upheld on appeal on 17/07/2019 by the Moscow City Court). Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   6588/20 17/01/2020 Yelena Yevgenyevna GUSAKOVA 1956     SIZO-1 St Petersburg refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is the mother of a detainee Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits     8864/20 03/02/2020 Viktoriya Viktorovna SKRIPNIK 1985     SIZO-1 St Petersburg refusal of short-term family visits from 09/02/2019 to 15/10/2019. At the relevant time the applicant was a fiancée of a detainee. The visits were refused for almost a year Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   9971/20 04/02/2020 Ramil Ravilevich ABDULLIN 1986     SIZO-5 Tatarstan Republic refusal of short-term family visits Refusal of visits of a partner throughout the detention in the pre-trial facility (on-going on the date of lodging the application). Grounds for refusal to provide visits: no registered marriage, the applicant’s unwillingness to admit his guilt and to cooperate with the investigation. Attempts to challenge the refusals in courts were to no avail.   3,500   13147/20 25/02/2020 Daniil Timurovich AKBEROV 1997     SIZO-2 Moscow,   SIZO-5 Moscow,   SIZO-2 Kaluga Region,   SIZO-1 Yaroslavl Region,   SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, impossibility of phone communications The applicant’s father remained in pre-trial detention facilities till 17/11/2019. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   25909/20 11/06/2020 Irina Anatolyevna ANIKEYEVA 1956     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits The applicant is the mother of a detainee Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;     Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   27083/20 19/03/2020 Household   Yelena Anatolyevna VYSOTSKAYA 1970 Denis Yuryevich VYSOTSKIY 1989 Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich Taganrog SIZO-2, Rostov Region   refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is the mother of a detainee, refusal of visiting in the period: 11/11/2019-22/02/2020 Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits. 3,500   32403/20 07/06/2020 Yevgeniya Victorovna ANIKEYEVA 1982     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is the wife of a detainee Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits   3,500   34205/20 22/07/2020 Vasiliy Vyacheslavovich DVIRNIK 1990     SIZO-5 Moscow   SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic   SIZO-5 Tatarstan Republic physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits From 29/10/2015 to 11/02/2021 – period under examination. From 2018 to 2020 there was a limitation on the frequency of the short-term visits for the applicant’s partner and child.     3,500   2658/21 17/12/2020 Svetlana Petrovna MIROSHNICHENKO 1980     SIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia refusal of short-term family visits The applicant is the wife of a detainee. He has been in pre-trial detention since 10/08/2020 (only two visits were granted). Her relevant complaints were dismissed by domestic courts. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   8681/21 09/01/2021 Mariya Aleksandrovna SHILOVA 1985     SIZO-1 St Petersburg physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits The applicant’s husband was detained in SIZO between 30/03/2016 and 09/09/2020. Visits were limited by one hour, there had been a glass barrier preventing from any physical contact, and in the presence of the SIZO staff member.   3,500   20628/21 01/04/2021 Yelena Adolfovna VASHUKOVA 1963     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits the applicant is the mother of a detainee Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   32409/21 24/05/2021 Ilnaz Ildusovich ZABBAROV 1994 Abdrashitov Elik Yevgenyevich Orel SIZO-1 Orenburg limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits Since April 2020 - restrictions in visits; since November 2020 - no visits. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic (via a video link), from 09/04/2020 to 23/03/2021 9,750   34680/21 28/06/2021 Komil Karimovich MATIYEV 1980     SIZO-2 Tatarstan Republic refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits The applicant has been detained since 14/03/2017. On 05/02/2021 he was convicted by the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court. On 05/04/2021 the Appellate Military Court refused to grant the request of the applicant’s wife for a long-term visit in SIZO-2.   3,500   36406/21 28/06/2021 Elkhan Novruz ogly SHIRIYEV 1994       SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant requested long-term visits on several occasions from the SIZO administration and judges but to no avail. He is in detention on remand since 01/01/2020. Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits.   3,500   36524/21 09/07/2021 Household   Irina Ivanovna DOMANOVA 1984 Aleksey Leonidovich KRISHTOPA 1980   Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg SIZO-1 Stavropol Region limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits The applicants are non-married long-term partners. The second applicant has been in detention since 04/03/2021. The applicants were allowed short-term visits on 10/03/2021 and 18/03/2021. Later, on 25/03/2021, 28/04/2021, 06/05/2021, 18/05/2021, 27/05/2021, they were refused without any explanation   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   43710/21 09/08/2021 Artem Arslanovich KHAMIDULLIN 1981     SIZO-2 Tatarstan Republic refusal of short-term family visits Refusals of short-term family visits with his mother, wife, sister. Several refusals of investigator, last one on 15/12/2020 (upheld on 30/07/2021 by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic) Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   49163/21 29/09/2021 Svetlana Petrovna PYATANOVA 1985     SIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia refusal of short-term family visits The applicant’s husband is detained in SIZO-1 Republic of Mordovia since 06/02/2019.   3,500   51492/21 27/09/2021 Kirill Valentinovich KUCHINSKIY 1986     SIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits The applicant is in pre-trial detention since 26/05/2015 – on-going on the date of lodging application with the Court. He complains about refusal of long-term visits from his mother and about modalities of short-term meetings with her Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards modalities of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and in respect of restrictions on family visits;     Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal against the decision by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 16/09/2021 considered by the Second Appellate Court on 21/10/2021; appeal against the decision of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court of 24/12/2021 was examined by the Second Appellate Court on 03/02/2022;     Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - SIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region, 01/10/2021-pending as of 16/09/2022, opposite-sex operators, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room 4,000   51669/21 04/10/2021 Valentina Anatolyevna DANILOVA 1959     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is the mother of a detainee. Her requests to visit her son were to no avail. The latest reply from FSIN was on 29/06/2021; the period of detention: 28/05/2015 – pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits;   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   58607/21 14/09/2021 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich AGEYEV 1978     SIZO-1 Tver Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is serving his life sentence in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region. In August 2019 the app. was transferred to SIZO-1 in the Tver Region to take part in another set of criminal proceedings against him. On 02/08/2021 the applicant lodged a request to grant a long-term visit with his wife, who lives in Tver. The request was dismissed. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits 3,500   4078/22 30/12/2021 Ilnur Amirovich FAYZULIN 1994 Alekseyeva Natalya Vasilyevna Krasnoyarsk SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk refusal of long-term family visits No long-term family visits was allowed pending criminal proceedings (on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court) Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits. 3,500   7144/22 12/01/2022 Sabina Sergeyevna KARETNIKOVA 1989     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits The applicant is the wife of a detainee. Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits. 3,500   17635/22 09/03/2022 Georgiy Vladimirovich LADARIYA 1979     SIZO-4 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits Detention since 15/01/2015 Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   21811/22 08/04/2022 Aleksandr Andreyevich VASHUKOV 1989     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits The applicant is a brother of a detainee. On 18/01/2022 the FSIN refused a long ‑ term family visit. Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   25229/22 28/04/2022 Nadezhda Viktorovna GERASIMOVA 1961     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is the mother of a detainee Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in respect of restrictions on family visits;   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   29351/22 20/05/2022 Andrey Sergeyevich ZHIGULSKIY 1996     SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits Period under examination: since 08/08/2019 and on-going on the date when the application was lodged with the Court Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500   30067/22 10/05/2022 Dmitriy Yevgenyevich SUKHORUKOV 1968 Sukhorukova Yaroslavna Nikolayevna Myskhako SIZO-3, Novorossiysk physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits Conviction on 24/03/2021, Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk, upheld on appeal, 18/11/2021 by the Krasnodar Regional Court. Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnodar Regional Court between 20/07/2021 and 18/11/2021 via video-link from SIZO-3, Novorossiysk; relevant judgment date 18/11/2021, Krasnodar Regional Court 9,750   30978/22 16/06/2022 Yuliya Olegovna TARKHANOVA 1983     SIZO-1 Moscow refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of telephone conversations, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits         The applicant is the wife of a detainee, period under examination since 17/02/2021 and on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court   3,500   35019/22 20/05/2022 Andrey Igorevich IVANOV 1996     SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short ‑ term family visits Visits from mother, brother and grandmother, the period under examination: since 07/08/2019 and on-going on the date the application was lodged with the Court Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.