CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2018

.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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 12 June 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 71537/17 Dmitriy Robertovich BIKBULATOV against Russia lodged on 12 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Family visits . After the criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial on 9 June 2016, he was allowed to see his partner only once, on 14   June 2016. The trial judge told him that family visits would be allowed after the conviction. However, the judgment had been pronounced on 5   February 2018 but the applicant’s subsequent request to see his partner was again refused. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the restriction on family visits in the period from 14 June 2016 and until at least 16 March 2018?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about a restriction on family visits, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?