CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sECB3FADA { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt }     FIFTH SECTION Application no. 21304/13 E.L. against Sweden lodged on 25 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr E.L., is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1974 and is serving a four-year prison sentence imposed on 30   November 2011. He is represented before the Court by Ms E.W., his partner living in Hisings Backa. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 23 April 2012 the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Saltvik Prison ( Kriminalvården, Anstalten Saltvik – hereafter “the Prison”) rejected the applicant’s request for visiting rights from Ms W. (hereafter E.W.).The Prison also rejected the applicant’s request for the right to have telephone conversations with her. The Prison first noted that the applicant had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for aggravated assault, serious violation of a woman’s integrity and obstructing the course of justice. These crimes had been directed against his ex-wife, Y. The applicant had also been convicted of assault and battery of his daughter. Furthermore, the Prison observed that the acts of violence against Y had taken place at home and that the children of the applicant and Y had been present on several occasions when the violence had occurred. E.W. had also been present on several of these occasions. The Prison noted that E.W. had agreed to having contact with the applicant. However, underlining the fact that the acts of violence had been directed against a woman with whom the applicant had had a close relationship, the Prison found that visits by E.W. and telephone conversations between the applicant and E.W. could jeopardise security, obstruct the applicant’s readaptation into society or harm E.W. E.W. and the applicant requested a re-examination of the matter. They stated, inter alia , the following. They were a couple and had known each other for five years. E.W. was not a victim of crime. The mental health of E.W. had deteriorated severely following the Prison’s decisions. Further, the applicant and E.W. had not been able to finish a work project (publishing a book written by the applicant) on which they had embarked together since they had not been allowed to see each other, resulting in the bankruptcy of E.W.’s company. While the applicant had been placed in pre-trial detention, they had been permitted to see and to call each other approximately 60 times, without any problems. On 16 May 2012 the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Northern Region ( Kriminalvården, Region Nord – hereafter “the Service”) decided not to change the Prison’s decision. The Service observed that E.W. had been living together with the applicant and the victims of crime when the crimes had been committed. The Service found that a visit by E.W. and telephone conversations between the applicant and E.W. could jeopardise security, obstruct the applicant’s readaptation into society or harm the applicant or somebody else. In its view, these risks could not be eliminated by controlled visits or monitored telephone conversations. The applicant appealed against the decision to the County Administrative Court ( förvaltningsrätten ) in Härnösand, maintaining his claims and adding the following. He and E.W. had lived together and intended to marry as soon as possible. However, as a result of the decisions of the authorities they could not. The reasoning in the decisions had been put in general terms, making it harder for him to argue against it. The fact that he had been convicted of violence in a close relationship did not automatically give rise to a risk that he or E.W. would be harmed by visits. Further, visits by E.W. would facilitate his readaptation into society. Moreover, during his time in prison, he had behaved in an exemplary manner. He attended a prison programme which entailed motivational dialogues. Lastly, the authorities could have decided to take less intrusive measures. The applicant submitted a certificate from the Swedish Tax Agency, dated 2 July 2012, stating that there were no impediments to marriage between him and E.W. On 18 October 2012 the County Administrative Court upheld the appealed decision. The court noted that the applicant had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for, inter alia , aggravated assault of Y. The court also observed that the acts of violence had taken place in the home and that the children of the applicant and Y as well as E.W. had been home when the violence had occurred. Against this background, the court found no reason to deviate from the assessments made in the appealed decision. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal ( kammarrätten ) in Sundsvall, maintaining his claims and adding that he and E.W. had not been able to see or to call each other for nearly a year. He had now completed his motivational programme. On 28 November 2012 the Administrative Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The applicant appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ), which, on 16 January 2013, refused leave to appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that the Swedish authorities’ decisions to deprive him of the possibility to have visits by, or telephone conversations with, his partner were completely disproportional and in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES By refusing the applicant’s request to receive visits by, or telephone calls from, E.W., has there been a violation of his right to respect for his private and family life and correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?