CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3290EFE9 { height:111.15pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s3825073A { height:218.65pt } Published on 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   56727/18 Azamat Rinatovich KAYUMOV and Others against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 March 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern the complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, Resin v.   Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018, Chaldayev v. Russia, no.   33172/16, 28 May 2019, Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9   June 2020 and Mukhametov and others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and   3   others, 14 December 2021).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Detention facility Type of restriction Other relevant information Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     56727/18* 19/11/2018 Household   Azamat Rinatovich KAYUMOV 1982   Samira Azamatovna KAYUMOVA 2010   Shakira Abdulkhayevna KAYUMOVA 1958       SIZO-3 Bashkortostan Republic refusal of long-term family visits Refusal of long-term family visits (Andrey Smirnov v.   Russia, no.   43149/10, §§   39-43, 13   February 2018) Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of long-term family visits     668/19* 08/12/2018 Household   Radik Mudarisovich AKHMETOV 1976   Gulnara Fayzelgayanovna AKHMETOVA 1974   Abdurakhman Radikovich AKHMETOV 2015   Amir Radikovich AKHMETOV 2009   Karim Radikovich AKHMETOV 2011       SIZO-1 Republic of Bashkortostan, SIZO-3 Republic of Bashkortostan refusal of long-term family visits The first applicant was a defendant in a criminal case. His wife is the second applicant. The remaining three applicants are their children. Their repeated requests for long-term family visits were to no avail. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of long-term family visits     37713/20* 07/08/2020 Household   Rinat Ranifovich NURLYGAYANOV 1991   Mukhammad Rinatovich NURLYGAYANOV 2013   Gulnaz Uralovna NURLYGAYANOVA 1990   Milyausha Vilovna NURLYGAYANOVA 1969   Rayana Rinatovna NURLYGAYANOVA 2015     SIZO-1 Ufa, SIZO-3 Sterlitamak, SIZO-5 Durtuli, SIZO-4 Birsk refusal of long-term family visits; refusal of short-term family visits The applicant was detained in different remand prisons between 04/02/2015 and 22/10/2020 without long-term family visits. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits and in respect of long-term family visits in pre-trial detention   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits - The complaint raised only by the first applicant. He complains about discrimination in respect of long-term visits in comparison with convicted prisoners (Chaldayev v.   Russia (no.   33172/16, §§   66 83, 28   May 2019)     42078/20 07/08/2020 Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV 1994 Ayndi Khamzatovich Isayev Krasnoyarsk SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk   limitation on duration of short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation during short-term family visits detention period: 10/05/2017-pending; family members: partner, mother, father Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Krasnoyarsk Regional Court - 24/09/2020   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention: 1) detention order - 24/09/2020, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; appeal - 22/10/2020, Fifth Appeal Court; 2) detention order - 25/03/2021, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; Fifth Appellate Court, 19/05/2021, (lodged an appeal on 29/03/2021)   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art.   8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits     55929/20 17/11/2020 Roman Aleksandrovich KARETNIKOV 1986     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation during short-term family visits, limitations on the duration of short-term family visits     detention period – since 26/05/2015; family members - wife, minor child Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - detention order - 28/12/2020, Arkhangelsk Regional Court; appeal - 04/02/2021, Second Appeal Court   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits     13761/21* 20/02/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich DANILOV 1985     SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits In detention since 26/05/2015. His relevant complaints were dismissed by the domestic authorities. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of refusals of long-term family visits   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art.   8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits     21878/21* 02/04/2021 Oksana Viktorovna PIMENOVA 1973     SIZO-3 Samara, SIZO-2 Syzran, SIZO-4 Tolyatti, IVS Samara 07/07/2014 - 22/01/2021 physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - Applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearings in the Zheleznogorskiy District Court of Samara and Samara Regional Court from 07/07/2014 to 03/12/2020   Art. 14 - in conjunction with Art.   8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits     21945/21* 01/04/2021 Household   Artur Aleksandrovich KUPREISHVILI 1989   Zhanna Dzhanikovna KUPREISHVILI 1968       SIZO-1 Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during the short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits complaint is lodged by both applicants (son and mother). The first applicant has been in pre-trial detention since 31/12/2014.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings and in respect of refusals of long-term family visits and restrictions during short-term family visits; the complaint is lodged by both applicants   Art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination - in conjunction with Art.   8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards restrictions during short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits; the complaint is lodged by both applicants   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - the first applicant has been held in a glass cabin during the hearings by the Archangelsk Regional Court since 25/01/2021 with the personal space afforded 0.6   sq. m     30587/21* 27/05/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich ATAYEV 1977 Nikita Aleksandrovich Tugov Moscow SIZO-4 Moscow refusal of short-term family visits; refusal of phone calls to his family since 08/12/2018 Visits refused for the entire period of detention on remand as of 08/12/2018. Lodged Art.   125 complaint, to no vail.   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - kept in a metal cage and in a glass cabin in Tverskoy District Court of Moscow and Moscow City Court during the hearings concerning determination of the criminal charge and pre-trial detention between 11/11/2020 and 08/04/2021   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of detention in a van and in transit cells at the courts from 11/11/2019 to 08/04/2021; applicant transported on numerous occasions, each trip lasting 4   hours, lack of fresh air, no or restricted access to toilet, lack or insufficient quantity of food, overcrowding, passive smoking, no or restricted access to potable water, sharing cells with inmates infected with contagious disease, transported in handcuffs   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Moscow City Court, 11/02/2021, upheld by First Appellate Court on 18/03/2021   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention (the complaint under Article   5   §   3 concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention form 08/12/2018 to 08/04/2021 has already been communicated (application no.   10206/20)   Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention