CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 December 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 54313/16 Florin ANGHEL against Romania lodged on 19 October 2016 communicated on 24 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to family visits in detention. The applicant was initially detained in Miercurea-Ciuc prison, where he received regular visits from his mother and some visits from the mother of his children and from his brother. In October 2016, he was transferred to Bârcea Mare prison, which is located 300 km away from Miercurea-Ciuc, the place of his residence. The applicant claims that there is no direct public transportation from Miercurea ‑ Ciuc to Bârcea Mare and that his family stopped visiting him or sending parcels with food. The applicant did not lodge any appeal to challenge his transfer but his mother made an administrative request for a transfer to a prison closer to his place of residence. In response, in March 2017, the National Administration of Prisons decided to transfer the applicant to Baia Mare prison which is located even further away. By a letter received on 19 April 2017, the applicant alleged a violation of his right to respect for his family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of his transfer to a distant prison.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference compatible with the conditions set by the terms of Article   8 §   2? Most specifically, was the decision to transfer the applicant to a distant prison in accordance with the law? Could the applicant request a judicial review of the reasons for the decision to transfer him (see Polyakova and Others v. Russia , nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, § 108, 7   March 2017)? Did the decision to transfer him pursue one of the legitimate aims provided by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Vintman v.   Ukraine , no. 28403/05, §   99, 23 October 2014)? Moreover, did the decision to transfer him take into consideration the applicant’s personal situation and did the national authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons (ibid., § 103)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention combined with Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did such a remedy, be it of civil or administrative nature, provide an effective balancing exercise of the interests at stake as well as an adequate examination of the proportionality of the interference alleged by the applicant (see Polyakova, cited above, §§ 111-115, and Voynov v.   Russia , no. 39747/10, § 42, 3   July 2018)?   The Government are invited to provide examples of pertinent domestic decisions, preferably from the same period as that of the facts of the present application.