CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 Trosin v. Ukraine - 39758/05 Judgment 23.2.2012 [Section V] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Infrequent and restricted family visits for life prisoner: violation   Facts – In 2005 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Until 2010 he was allowed family visits once every six months. After that date, he received family visits once every three months, for a maximum of four hours. Only three adults could be present for the visit, although the applicant wished to maintain contact with his mother, wife, son and brother. The applicant could only communicate with visitors through a glass partition and a prison officer was present at all times. Law – Article 8: Even though deprivation of liberty inevitably entailed certain limitations on the detainee’s family life, in the applicant’s case the relevant provisions of domestic law introduced automatic restrictions on the frequency and length of family visits for all life prisoners, irrespective of whether such restrictions were indeed necessary in each individual case. The Court considered, however, that the regulation of family visits could not amount to such inflexible restrictions and that the States had to develop a mechanism which would allow the authorities to balance the competing individual and public interests and to take into account peculiarities of each individual case. The applicant was only able to see three of his four family members at a time, for a limited period and only through a glass partition that excluded any physical contact. In addition, the presence of a prison officer did not allow the applicant any privacy or intimacy in communication with his family members. In conclusion, the State had failed to take necessary measures to ensure that the applicant’s private interest in meeting with his family was properly balanced against the relevant public interest in restricting prisoners’ contacts with the outside world. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes