CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2024

.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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 26 February 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   50599/16 Larisa Vladimirovna CHAPODZE and Yermalo Grigoryevich CHAPODZE against Russia and 10 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 February 2024, 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 complaints raised under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention relating to 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     50599/16* 17/08/2016 Household Larisa Vladimirovna CHAPODZE 1964   Yermalo Grigoryevich CHAPODZE 1969     SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk Region physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits the second applicant was detained in SIZO-1 from 14/08/2013 to 20/07/2016       17891/18* 28/03/2018 Household Oleg Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV 1977     Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich LOKTIONOV 1970   Irina Vladimirovna LOKTIONOVA 1972   Svetlana Ivanovna LOKTIONOVA 1949 Valeriya Yuryevna Prikhodkina Chelyabinsk SIZO-3 Chelyabinsk refusal of long-term family visits The first applicant was detained in SIZO-3 from 31/02/2015 to 07/11/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in conjunction with art. 8,   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,   Art. 3 - torture or inhuman or degrading treatment - On 12/04/2018 and 13/04/2018 the first applicant was held handcuffed in a glass cabin during the pronouncement of the judgment in his case. The applicant’s relevant complaint was reviewed repeatedly by courts at four levels of jurisdiction. The final decision on the matter dismissing the applicant’s complaint was taken by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23/07/2021. The courts reasoned that handcuffing was necessary for security reasons     2339/19* 24/11/2018 Konstantin Aleksandrovich CHERNOV 1975   Semen Borisovich Isachenkov, Madrid SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk refusal of short-term family visits The applicant and his family were refused visits from 06/04/2018 to 04/07/2018 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     8452/19* 15/01/2019 Emil Fanilevich SHANGAREYEV 1993       SIZO-1 Tatarstan Republic refusal of short-term family visits From 03/08/2018 to 26/04/2019 Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - belated review of the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention of 28/01/2019 - appeal by the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court on 06/03/2019 (the complaint was lodged on 15/04/2019), Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - The applicant was transported about 50 times between the remand prison and the courthouse pending criminal proceedings against him between 08/02/2019 and 26/04/2019: no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, inadequate temperature, no or restricted access to potable water, lack of or insufficient quantity of food, lack of or insufficient electric light, lack of or insufficient natural light. Each of the trips took about 3 to 4 hours (lodged on 19/10/2019),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport and in respect of the placement in a metal cage during court hearings,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms - The applicant was held in a metal cage during the hearings at the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court on numerous occasions between 08/02/2019 and 26/04/2019     51956/19 26/09/2019 Marat Mukhamadeyevich GALEYEV 1982   Oleg Ilfatovich Kamalov Kazan SIZO-2 Kazan refusal of short-term family visits The applicant was remanded in custody on 01/02/2018. While in custody, he was allowed only one short-term family visit on 18/02/2019 Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits     53207/19 25/09/2019 Household Sona Magatamovna SHAMSHILOVA 1983   Rustam Alisovetovich SHAMSHILOV 1980   Yuliya Vyacheslavovna Mitrokhina Novosibiisk SIZO-1 Novosibirsk refusal of short-term family visits The second applicant was detained in SIZO-1 from 18/05/2018 to 13/05/2019 Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-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     49742/20 13/10/2020 Household Danis Miratovich FAYZRAKHMANOV 1988   Elnara Muradovna AMIROVA 1989   Mirat Magfuryanovich FAYZRAKHMANOV 1962   Amira Danisovna FAYZRAKHMANOVA 2014   Guzaliya Magsumovna FAYZRAKHMANOVA 1959     SIZO-3 Sterlitamak, Bashkortostan Republic refusal of long-term family visits Five applicants, all family members (parents, wife and a child of the detainee). The first applicant was detained in SIZO-3 from 04/02/2015 to 21/09/2020. He was convicted of terrorism on 30/07/2018 (final decision – Supreme Court of Russia, 21/09/2020). The applicants were allowed only one long-term family visit. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits     50071/20* 18/10/2020 Kikito Dzhanikovich KUPREISHVILI 1970       SIZO-4, the Arkhangelsk Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant is in detention since 2014 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of long-term family visits in remand prison and in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport,   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,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Arkhangelsk Regional Court 16/09/2021 - Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 21/10/2021 (appeal lodged on 21/09/2021); Arkhangelsk Regional Court 24/12/2021 - Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 03/02/2022,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - Transfers between the remand prison and the courthouse during the criminal proceedings against the applicant (since 25/01/2017): applicant transported on numerous occasions, overcrowding, inadequate temperature     32509/21* 14/06/2021 Vladimir Vladimirovich SALOVATOV 1989       SIZO-1 Krasnoyarsk physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits The applicant was detained in SIZO-1 from 30/10/2020 to 26/02/2022 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   39874/21* 21/07/2021 Yaroslav Vladimirovich SUMBAYEV 1990   Valeriy Vladimirovich Shukhardin Moscow SIZO-1 Moscow refusal of short-term family visits, refusal of long-term family visits, refusal of phone calls to family members The period under consideration is from 24/10/2019 to 16/09/2022. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Detention order issued by the Moscow City Court on 25/01/2021 was reviewed by the First Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 04/03/2021   59791/21 17/11/2021 Natalya Andreyevna CHAPLYGINA 1982       SIZO-1 Tver Region refusal of long-term family visits The applicant’s husband served a life sentence in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Region. On 25/07/2019 he was transferred to SIZO-1 Tver Region, in connection with another set of the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s husband was detained in SIZO-1 as of 03/11/2021. Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of long-term family visits