Communicated on 13 September 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no 19845/15
Jurijus GATČINAS against Lithuania
and 2 other applications
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Lithuanian nationals. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Facts
1. Application no. 19845/15 was lodged on 20 March 2015 by Jurijus Gatčinas, who was born on 24 June 1988 and is detained in Vilnius Correctional Facility.
In 2015 the applicant wrote to the administration of Lukiškės Remand Prison and asked it to provide him with information about long-term visits. The prison administration replied that it was not possible for him to receive long-term visits, as he was a remand prisoner and there was no provision for such visits in domestic law.
2. Application no. 55109/15 was lodged on 27 October 2015 by Mindaugas Ragulskis, who was born on 7 June 1973 and is detained in Pravieniškės Correctional Facility.
From 23 May 2009 until 15 December 2011 the applicant was held in Kaunas Remand Prison.
On 14 January 2014 he lodged a complaint with the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court. Among other things, he complained about not being able to receive long-term visits.
On 13 May 2014 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed his complaint about the lack of long-term visits, stating that, in accordance with domestic law, remand prisoners could not receive them.
The applicant appealed and on 12 March 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to re-examine the case.
On 10 July 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court stated that remand prisoners did not have a right to long-term visits, and that this right was reasonably restricted.
3. Application no. 75275/16 was lodged on 1 December 2016 by Jaroslav Kuprijaškin, who was born on 19 May 1980 and is detained in Kybartai Correctional Facility.
From 31 May 2012 to 21 May 2014 and from 17 December 2014 to 29 December 2014 the applicant was detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison.
In February 2015 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court. Among other things, he complained about not being able to receive long-term visits.
On 16 October 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that from 31 May 2012 until 21 May 2014 the applicant had been a remand prisoner, and in accordance with domestic law he had not had a right to long-term visits.
B. Relevant domestic law
For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 58-61, 13 July 2013) and Čiapas v. Lithuania, (no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 27 July 2017).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about their inability to receive long-term visits. They also complain under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that they suffered discrimination as remand prisoners, as they were not entitled to long-term visits.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life in refusing to allow them long-term visits, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their status as remand prisoners as opposed to convicted inmates, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 115-123, 9 July 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy