Published on 14 June 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 6471/21
Nikita Vladimirovich KOZUBSKIY
against Russia
lodged on 29 December 2020
communicated on 28 May 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Nikita Vladimirovich Kozubskiy, is a Russian national, who was born in 1990 and is serving his sentence in correctional colony no. IK-19 in Ukhta, the Republic of Komi, Russia.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.The circumstances of the case
3. On 4 March 2019 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment. On 26 April 2019 he was transferred to IK-19.
4. From the outset of his sentence the applicant started to attend an Orthodox Christian chapel situated on the territory of the colony. It was not allegedly allowed to visit the chapel during some state holidays.
5. According to the applicant’s beliefs, he as an Orthodox Christian had to follow the traditional fasting between 2 March and 18 April 2020. The fasting requires abstinence from any animal products.
6. On an unspecified date the applicant requested the regional department of the Russian Federal Penitentiary Authority in the Republic of Komi to provide him with a special diet in accordance with his beliefs during the fasting period as well as to allow visits to the chapel during state holidays.
7. On 16 December 2020 his request was dismissed. The authorities found that the applicant could not have been provided with the diet as such an option was not envisaged in domestic law. They also asserted that the colony’s internal regulations allowed for attendance of the chapel on state holidays in accordance with the colony daily timetables. They did not define the time allegedly allotted in the timetables for that purpose. Neither did they specify if the applicant had been prohibited from attending the chapel to any extent in practice.Relevant domestic law
8. Article 10 § 2 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997 (“the CES”) provides that while serving their sentences, prisoners enjoy all rights and freedoms save for those exceptions listed in domestic legislation, including the criminal law and the law on execution of criminal sentences.
9. Article 14 of the CES provides that prisoners enjoy their freedom of conscience and religion. They have the right to profess any religion or not to profess any, to freely choose, enjoy and spread their religious beliefs and to follow them.
COMPLAINTS
10. The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that the penitentiary authorities had failed to respect his freedom of religion by refusing to provide him with a special diet in accordance with the tenets of his religion.
11. He further invokes the same provision by complaining about restrictions on visits to the colony chapel on state holidays.
12. He lastly alleges under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal any effective domestic remedies to complain about the above irregularities.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the State’s refusal to provide the applicant with a special diet during the traditional Christian Orthodox fasting constitute a violation of his rights as set forth in Article 9 of the Convention (see, in particular, Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, §§ 42-55, 7 December 2010; Vartic v. Romania (no. 2), no. 14150/08, §§ 44-55, 17 December 2013 )?
Do the applicable legislation and internal regulations allow, in principle, to assess the applicant’s individual situation at his request and to provide him with a special diet on religious grounds? If so, what is the legal basis and the procedure for lodging and examining such a request?
2. Did the State prohibit the applicant from attending religious services at the prison chapel on national holidays? If so, did this prohibition constitute an interference with his freedom of religion envisaged in Article 9 of the Convention (see Moroz v. Ukraine, no. 5187/07, §§ 105-09, 2 March 2017)? Was the interference “prescribed by law”? Was it necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued? Did the applicant have reasonable alternatives available to him to exercise his right to freedom of religion in this respect?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal any effective domestic remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convection to complain about the above? In particular, were those remedies accessible for the applicant and capable of providing acknowledgement and redress for the impugned situation? If so, did he exhaust them?
4. The Government are invited to provide the Court with extracts from the legislation and internal prison regulations relevant for the situation at hand. They are particularly invited to furnish the daily timetables in force in the applicant’s colony and to specify the time that could be used for visits to the chapel on state holidays.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy