CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 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 23 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 45005/11 Vasilii HOMICI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 4 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal to allow the applicant long-term (conjugal) visits in prison by his girlfriend, whom he tried to marry without success due to administrative impediments. It raises an issue under Articles   8 and 12 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Do the facts of the case disclose a violation of Article 8 and/or 12 of the Convention? In particular, did the Moldovan law provide for the possibility to allow prisoners long-term (conjugal) visits by persons other than close relatives? If so, was the refusal of the applicant’s request for such visits by his girlfriend “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 and did the prison authorities and courts justify the continued need to deny such visits (see, mutatis mutandis , Yaroshovets and Others v.   Ukraine , nos. 74820/10 and 4 others, §§ 173-175, 3 December 2015)? Did the authorities’ actions result in the impossibility for the applicant to marry his girlfriend during a long period of time?