CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 janvier 2016

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt }     Communicated on 5 January 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30315/10 Vyacheslav Vasilyevich BIGUN and Lesya Nikolayevna BIGUN against Ukraine lodged on 12 May 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Vyacheslav Vasilyevich Bigun and Ms   Lesya Nikolayevna Bigun, are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1979 and 1983 respectively. They are a married couple. The first applicant is serving a life sentence in Dnipropetrovsk prison no. 89. The second applicant lives in Obukhiv. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr   P.   Bukalov and Ms L. Lapiga, lawyers practicing in Kyiv and Obukhiv respectively. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 24 March 2000 the applicants got married. On 16 February 2001 the first applicant was convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 16 October 2003 he started serving his sentence in Dnipropetrovsk prison no. 89. The applicants requested that the prison’s administration allow them a long-term visit on many occasions, in particular, in 2006. Their requests were rejected on the grounds that Article 151 of the Code of Execution of Sentences did not provide for long-term visits to prisoners serving a life sentence. In April 2007 the applicants lodged an administrative claim against the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences seeking an entitlement to a long-term visit every three months. The courts, on three levels of jurisdiction, rejected that claim as not based on law. The final decision of the Higher Administrative Court was delivered on 8 December 2009. B.     Relevant domestic law Pursuant to Article 110 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (“the Code”, 2003), a short-term visit in a prison lasts up to four hours and a long-term visit – up to three days. Under Article 151 of the Code, as worded before 16 February 2010, convicted prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment were entitled to one short-term visit every six months. Following the entry into force of these amendments on 16   February 2010, prisoners of that category became entitled to one short-term visit every three months. Subsequently, Article 151 of the Code was further amended, with those changes coming into effect on 6 May 2014. Under the Article’s new wording, prisoners serving a life sentence are entitled to one short-term visit per month and to one long-term visit every three months. This provision specifies now that these visits are for meeting close relatives (a spouse, parents, children, step-parents, stepchildren, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain that their inability to have long-term visits infringed their rights under Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention. They also complain, under Article 13, that they had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the above complaints.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the ban on long-term visits by family members to prisoners serving a life sentence constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention?   If so:   (a)     Was that interference lawful? (b)     Did it pursue a legitimate aim? (c)     Was it proportionate to the aim pursued?   The Government are also invited to comment on the present situation, following the amendments to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences enacted on 6 May 2014.   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 12 of the Convention on account of the ban on long-term visits by family members to prisoners serving a life sentence?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?