CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 27 September 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 70468/17 Timofey Vladimirovich KUNGUROV against Russia lodged on 14 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a refusal of prison visits. After the applicant was convicted of fraud and given a prison sentence, he asked the presiding judge for leave to see his wife and three children and to talk to them on the phone. His request was refused by a letter received on 16 March 2017. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the refusal of the applicant’s request for a meeting and phone call with his wife and children (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 39-43, 13   February 2018)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above grievance, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see Vlasov v. Russia , no. 78146/01, §§   151 ‑ 54, 12 June 2008)?