CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 novembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 15 November 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 292/18 Julius TIŠKEVIČIUS against Estonia lodged on 19 December 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a detainee’s right to communicate with his family during the criminal proceedings. The applicant, a Lithuanian national, was arrested in Lithuania, on 30   August 2016, following a European arrest warrant issued in Estonia, and taken to Estonia on 3   November 2016 where he was remanded in custody. By a decision of 7   November 2016, the prosecutor imposed additional restrictions on him, prohibiting short and long-term visits, correspondence and the use of telephone until the end of criminal proceedings. His complaint challenging the order was dismissed by the prosecutor and his subsequent request submitted during trial for the ban on communication with his wife and daughter to be lifted was dismissed by the domestic courts. At the time of his application to the Court, on 19   December 2017, the impugned restrictions were still in force. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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, due to the additional restrictions imposed on him by the prosecutor’s decision of 7   November 2016? If so, were they in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8   § 2? Would it have been possible to achieve the aim sought by any other means (see Piechowicz v. Poland , no.   20071/07, 17   April 2012; Kučera v. Slovakia , no. 48666/99, 17 July 2007; Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2) , no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of any relevant documents concerning the grounds for detaining the applicant, including in particular the warrant for his arrest, the decisions on remanding him in custody, and decisions on extending his detention. The Government are also invited to inform the Court whether the restrictions complained of are still in force or have been lifted and if so then when.