CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     Communicated on 10 July 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10633/07 Artem Sergeyevich DVOYNOV against Russia lodged on 27 October 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Artem Sergeyevich Dvoynov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Susuman. A.     The circumstances of the case 1.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 2.     On 21 July 2006 the Susumanskiy District Court of the Magadan Region convicted the applicant of attempted illegal sale of drugs and sentenced him to six years in prison. 3.     As of 27 October 2007 the applicant had been in a relationship with Ms K for two years and was planning to get married with her. 4.     While the applicant was serving his prison sentence he applied for a long-term visit by Ms K. However, the prison warden denied his request because Ms K was not a member of the applicant’s immediate family or his relative. 5.     The applicant did not challenge the warden’s decision and did not bring his complaint before domestic institutions as he believed that it would not be effective. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     Russian Code on the Execution of Sentences (CES) 6.     Article 89 § 1 as in force at the material time provided inmates with long-term visits of three-day duration. 7.     Article 89 § 2 provided that long-term visits with live-in rights are granted to spouses, parents, children, guardians, adopted children, immediate siblings, grandparents and grandchildren and - upon approval of the prison warden - to other visitors. 2.     Russian Family Code 8.     Article 10 § 2 provided that spouses acquire spousal rights and obligations when their marital union is registered in the civil records office. 3.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation 9.     As confirmed by the Constitutional Court (decision no. 26-O of 17   May 1995), Russian law does not recognise “unregistered marriage”, which does not entail any legal consequences. 4.     Russian Code of Civil Procedure 10.     Under Article 254 § 1 and Article 255 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure a person can bring civil judicial proceedings against an official decision which, in his or her opinion, has an adverse effect on his rights and freedoms. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that inability to see his domestic partner during his imprisonment threatened to weaken their bond as a couple and deteriorate their relationship.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention at his disposal, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular, bearing in mind the wording of Article 89 § 2 of the CES, was there an available avenue of redress allowing quashing of the decision by the representative of the Federal Penitentiary Service (prison warden) refusing inmate’s visits from his domestic partner on the grounds of an alleged interference with the inmate’s private and/or family life?   2.     Does the refusal to allow prison visits from the applicant’s domestic partner give rise to a “continuing situation” for the purposes of calculating the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Has the applicant complied with the six-month rule in relation to his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular,   (a)     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so,   (b)     was the interference in question “in accordance with law” and did it have due regard for relevant individual circumstances of the applicant; if so,   (c)     did it pursue one or more legitimate aims, and   (d)     was it necessary and proportionate for the pursuits of such aim?