CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7980263B { height:21.6pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4735D7A { height:20.55pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s96FB263B { height:20.8pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 18 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 29790/20 Saulius VELEČKA and Marina BUI-VELEČKIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 17 June 2020 communicated on 28 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family visits in prison. The applicants are husband and wife. The first applicant (Mr Velečka) is serving a prison sentence. On an unspecified date he became a suspect in a new pre-trial investigation concerning several crimes committed in an organised group. On 30 May 2019 he was placed in pre-trial detention at Vilnius Correctional Facility, and at the time of the lodging of the present application (on 17 June 2020) he was still in pre-trial detention. The second applicant (Ms Bui-Velečkienė) does not have any procedural status in that investigation. Following the first applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention, the prosecutor banned him from making telephone calls to anyone except his lawyer. The prosecutor noted that the first applicant had been suspected of being a leading member of a well-organised criminal group which had communicated by using various codes and unidentifiable mobile phones. Moreover, he had previously breached the ban on having a mobile phone in prison and unlawfully called several persons, including the second applicant. If he was allowed to make telephone calls, there was a risk that he may transmit coded information to other persons, thereby threatening the success of the investigation. Between May and November 2019, the applicants were granted three contact visits. Their request for an unlimited number of such visits was denied on the grounds that that may interfere with the investigation. From November 2019 they were allowed to have an unlimited number of contactless visits in the presence of a prison officer. During the same period, the prosecutor allowed the first applicant to have an unlimited number of contact visits with his mother and his three children, two of whom were adults. The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the limitation on contact visits interfered with their right to respect for their family life. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the number of contact visits granted to them (see Khoroshenko v.   Russia [GC], no.   41418/04, §§ 123-26, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein)? In particular, did the domestic authorities provide adequate justification for allowing the first applicant unlimited contact visits with his other relatives but not with the second applicant? APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Saulius Velečka 1971 Lithuanian Vilnius 2. Marina Bui-Velečkienė 1988 Lithuanian Vilnius