CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 11 October 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8578/12 Dina Viktorovna PAVLOVA against Russia lodged on 19 January 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a refusal of prison visits. The applicant was not allowed to see her husband, Mr Yunzel (see Yunzel v. Russia , no. 60627/09, 13 December 2016), for the entire duration of his trial. Her petitions for a prison visit were rejected by means of a non-procedural communication from the trial judge. 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 with her husband (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 39-43, 13   February 2018)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her 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)?