THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53331/19
Magomed-Rashid Mukharbekovich GAZIKOV
against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 September 2019,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Complaints under Article 8 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention (allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)As regards the applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning his allocation to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations and the authorities’ refusal to grant his application for a transfer, the Court reiterates that in its recent decisions of Dadusenko and Others v. Russia ((dec.), no. 36027/19 and 3 others, 7 September 2021), and Tamamshev and Others v. Russia ((dec.) [Committee], nos. 57368/19 and 59831/19, §§ 22-23, 7 September 2021), it has accepted that the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentence (the “CES”) as amended on 1 April 2020 (effective as of 29 September 2020) provided for an effective remedy for the complaints about the breaches of Article 8 of the Convention, as regards allocation or transfer of prisoners to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations, and, having dismissed those complaints for the applicants’ failure to exhaust a new remedy, it has declared that it will apply that approach to all similar applications pending before the Court (see Dadusenko and Others, cited above, §§ 25‑34).
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility of these complaints. It therefore considers that, in so far as the applicant has lodged prima facie well‑founded complaints, the amended CES affords him an opportunity to obtain adequate redress by challenging the proportionality of the refusal of a transfer in court. Accordingly, the applicant should exhaust this remedy before his complaints can be examined by the Court. It follows that his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court has found above that the applicant has an effective remedy at his disposal which he has been required to use for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, his complaint under Article 13 of the Convention must be rejected as being manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Remaining complaintsThe applicant also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the application and 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.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Detention facility
Family member
Place of residence of the family member
Approximate distance between the facility and the place of residence of the family members
(in km)
53331/19
19/09/2019
Magomed-Rashid Mukharbekovich GAZIKOV
1978
IK-49 Komi Republic
mother, wife
Dolakovo, Ingushetiya Republic
3,200