FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KAYUMOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 56727/18 and 8 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kayumovy and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre‑trial detention facilities. They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.JURISDICTION
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 of the Convention
7. The applicants complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention.
8. In the leading cases of 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, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the refusals of family visits were not “in accordance with law” and that the physical separation of the applicants from their visitors by means of a glass partition cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society”.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well‑established case-law (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08 and 154-58, 22 May 2012, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lengthy review of detention; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement in a metal cage during court hearings; Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29‑33, 18 February 2020, as regards the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities, Chaldayev, cited above, §§ 69-83, related to discriminatory treatment as regards family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Alekhin v. Russia, no. 10638/08, §§ 146-55, 30 July 2009, regarding the lack of compensation in relation to a delay in examination of an appeal against an extension detention order).
12. In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints lodged by some applicants under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in courtrooms and the remaining complaints under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia, no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019).remaining complaints
13. Mr Salimov (application no. 42078/20) also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
14. It follows that this part of application no. 42078/20 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others), the Court considers that the finding of a violation in application no. 42078/20 will constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction (see Ivanov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 44363/14 and 2 others, § 12, 4 June 2020, and Puzanov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 26895/14 and 2 other applications, § 13, 15 September 2022). It further considers reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table to the remaining applicants.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares the complaints concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities and the other complaints under the well‑established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and declares the remainder of application no. 42078/20 inadmissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of lack of domestic remedies to complain about the placement in a metal cage in the courtrooms and the remaining complaints under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention;Holds that a finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in application no. 42078/20; Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant /household
(in euros)[1]
56727/18
19/11/2018
(3 applicants)
Household
Azamat Rinatovich KAYUMOV
1982
Shakira Abdulkhayevna KAYUMOVA
1958
Samira Azamatovna KAYUMOVA
2010
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). The first applicant is a detainee. The two other applicants are his relatives.
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits.
5,000
668/19
08/12/2018
(5 applicants)
Household
Radik Mudarisovich AKHMETOV
1976
Gulnara Fayzelgayanovna AKHMETOVA
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 short-term family visits.
5,000
37713/20
07/08/2020
(5 applicants)
Household
Rinat Ranifovich NURLYGAYANOV
1991
Gulnaz Uralovna NURLYGAYANOVA
1990
Mukhammad Rinatovich NURLYGAYANOV
2013
Rayana Rinatovna NURLYGAYANOVA
2015
Milyausha Vilovna NURLYGAYANOVA
1969
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 first applicant was detained in different remand prisons between 04/02/2015 and 22/10/2020 without long-term family visits. The remaining applicants are his family.
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
5,000
42078/20
07/08/2020
Ilkin Elshanovich SALIMOV
1994
Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich
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 as of 16/09/2022; family members: partner, mother, father who could not visit the applicant in detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:
(1) detention order of 24/09/2020, by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; appeal on 22/10/2020, by the Fifth Appeal Court;
(2) detention order of 25/03/2021, by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; appeal decision by the Fifth Appellate Court on 19/05/2021, (appeal lodged 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
The finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction
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 who could not visit the applicant in detention
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 28/12/2020 was examined on appeal by the
Second Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction on 04/02/2021;
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.
2,000
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, pending as of 16/09/2022. His relevant complaints were dismissed by the domestic authorities
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits and 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.
1,500
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 restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities;
Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the 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.
9,750
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 application has been in pre-trial detention since 31/12/2014.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law 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 of 0.6 sq. m
5,000
30587/21
27/05/2021
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich ATAYEV
1977
Tugov Nikita Aleksandrovich
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 a complaint, to no vail.
The applicant was also refused to have any phone calls with his wife and minor children as of 08/12/2018 and ongoing as of 16/09/2022.
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; the applicant was 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;
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Moscow City Court on 11/02/2021, upheld by the First Appellate Court on 18/03/2021;
Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate compensation, for the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
7,250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy