CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22611/24 Rene VAINIK against Estonia lodged on 27 June 2024 communicated on 12 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is sentenced for life and is serving his sentence in Viru Prison. His compliant concerns a number of short-terms visits in prison between 2018 and 2020 during which the applicant was separated from his wife and his brother by a glass partition. The domestic courts dismissed his claim for damages. 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 (see Resin v.   Russia , no.   9348/14, §§   28 ‑ 34, 18 December 2018; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no.   43149/10, §§   51 ‑ 56, 13 February 2018; Trosin v. Ukraine , no. 39758/05, §§   42 ‑ 43 and   46, 23   February 2012; and, in the same vein, Kalda v.   Estonia [Committee], no.   35245/19, §§ 5-8, 1 March 2022, and Nikitin v.   Estonia [Committee], no.   49257/22, §§ 13-18, 3 February 2026)?