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 } Published on 18 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 38144/20 Juozas DELTUVA against Lithuania lodged on 14 August 2020 communicated on 28 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns family visits in prison. The applicant has been suspected of distributing a large amount of drugs while acting in an organised group. On 17 November 2019 he was placed in pre-trial detention, and at the time of the lodging of the present application (on 14 August 2020) he was still detained. Between November 2019 and May 2020, he lodged several requests with the prosecutor, asking for permission to receive visits from his wife and ten-year-old daughter, or alternatively only from his daughter, as well as to call them on the phone. He was granted one visit with them in February 2020. All his other requests were refused, on the grounds that that may interfere with the ongoing pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor and the courts stated that the applicant was suspected of being a leading member of an organised criminal group, which had used coded communication and unidentifiable phones. Moreover, he had previously breached the ban on having a mobile phone in detention, which demonstrated his disregard for the authorities’ lawful orders. Accordingly, there was a risk that through contacts with his family he may try to contact other suspects who had not yet been detained, or interfere with witnesses, or hide or destroy evidence. The applicant argued, inter alia , that his wife and daughter did not have any procedural status in the investigation; furthermore, the lack of visits was causing his daughter great psychological suffering, and it was unreasonable to believe that a visit with a child may interfere with the investigation. Those arguments were dismissed. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ refusal to grant him visits from his wife and daughter. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the refusal to grant him family visits (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 refusing visits from the applicant’s daughter?