CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2019

.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 24 January 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25832/18 Erikas NAVICKAS and Edita NAVICKIENE against Lithuania lodged on 23 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the inability of remand detainees to obtain long-stay family visits. The first applicant, Mr Erikas Navickas, was detained on remand from 14   March 2012 to 30   April 2015. On 28   January 2015 a court allowed a request by the second applicant, Ms Edita Navickienė, who is the first applicant’s wife, for a two-day visit of the first applicant, but the prison administration refused to grant them such a visit. The applicants were not given any long-stay visits until the first applicant’s release. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, in view of the fact that the applicants were unable to obtain long-stay family visits in detention from 28   January 2015 to 30 April 2015 (see Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, §§ 108-23, 9   July 2013; Costel Gaciu v. Romania , no. 39633/10, §§ 50-51 and 60, 23   June 2015; and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 47-48, 13   February 2018)?