Communicated on 11 May 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 50387/13
Ričardas GUDAUSKAS against Lithuania
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
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. 50387/13 was lodged on 29 July 2013 by Ričardas Gudauskas, who was born on 10 May 1987 and is detained in Kaunas Remand Prison.
The applicant was detained in Kaunas Remand Prison from 19 April 2012 until 15 November 2013. On an unspecified date he wrote to the prison administration to request a conjugal visit but was informed that domestic law did not afford pre-trial detainees a right to such visits.
2. Application no. 52927/13 was lodged on 14 August 2013 by Aivaras Mikalauskas, who was born on 9 August 1984 and is detained in Kybartai Correctional Facility.
The applicant was detained in Kaunas Remand Prison from 19 April 2012 until an unspecified date. On 10 October 2013 he wrote to the prison administration to request a conjugal visit but on 17 October 2013 was informed that domestic law did not afford pre-trial detainees a right to such visits. He started court proceedings but on 20 November 2013 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court adopted a decision ordering him to specify which provisions of domestic law had been breached by the prison administration in their refusal. The applicant did not do so because there were no provisions allowing him as a pre-trial detainee to have conjugal visits.
3. Application no. 62564/13 was lodged on 27 September 2013 by Rolandas Čiapas, who was born on 8 November 1966 and is detained in Šiauliai Remand Prison.
The applicant was detained in Šiauliai Remand Prison from 2 May 2013 until an unspecified date. On 1 August 2013, 7 August 2013, 14 February 2014 and 17 February 2014 he wrote to the prison administration to request conjugal visits but was informed that domestic law did not afford pre-trial detainees a right to such visits. He also complained to the Ministry of Justice on 30 July 2013, the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice on 20 August 2013, 30 September 2013 and 15 February 2014 and the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights on 16 February and 22 February 2014. He received similar responses, namely that the provisions of domestic law did not guarantee pre-trial detainees a right to conjugal visits. On 10 September 2013 he also complained to the Chief Administrative Disputes Commission about the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to grant him conjugal visits. His complaint was dismissed.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 22 of the Law on Execution of Detention states that a detainee has the right to unlimited visits from relatives and others. However, there must be written consent from the detainee.
The Internal Regulations for Pre-trial Detention Facilities provide that no physical contact is permitted during visits with detainees.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal of their requests for conjugal visits while detained in Kaunas Remand Prison for the first two applicants and Šiauliai Remand Prison for the third applicant. They also complain under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 that as detainees they were not afforded that right under domestic law while convicted individuals had such a right.
QUESTIONS to the parties
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?
2. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their status as prisoners on remand pending trial, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
1.50387/13GUDAUSKAS v. Lithuania
2.52927/13MIKALAUSKAS v. Lithuania
3.62564/13ČIAPAS v. Lithuania
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy