CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 25 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 82939/17 and 27166/19 Ildikó TAKÓ against Hungary and Mária VISZTNÉ ZÁMBÓ against Hungary lodged on 4 December 2017 and 15 May 2019 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant in application no. 82939/17 is the wife of P.S., and the one in application no. 27166/19 is the mother of P.S. The applications concern their contact with P.S., a high-profile criminal in pre-trial detention under a special detention regime. The applicants complain that the limitations imposed on their visitation rights, in particular the restriction that they may communicate with P.S. only through a glass partition, constitute a disproportionate interference with their family life. On 16 November 2017 the head penitentiary officer lodged a request with the competent court asking the court to allow the lifting of the restriction on the applicants’ and P.S.’s visitation rights. The court granted the request; however, for reasons unspecified in the case-file, the restrictions were not lifted by the head penitentiary officer. On 10 September 2017 and 20 November 2018 respectively, the applicants and P.S. lodged complaints with the Penitentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office requesting the lifting of the restrictions, but to no avail.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the restrictions on the manner of conducting family visits with the applicants’ detained relative (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR   2015)?   2.     In particular, did the authorities strike a fair balance between the applicants’ rights and the aims that were sought to be achieved through the special prison regime, especially in light of the decision of the Penitentiary Public Prosecutor’s Office rejecting the applicants’ complaint despite the fact that the competent court allowed the lifting of the restrictions?   3.     The parties are requested to produce all documents pertaining to the circumstances in question.