THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55341/17
Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV against Russia
and 12 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility to the Russian Government (“the Government”) initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in that office Mr M. Vinogradov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicants are prisoners serving prison sentences of various terms, including life sentences, and their family members. The relevant details pertaining to each application are set out in the table below.
2. The applicants complain of the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. Some of the applicants (see the appended table) also argue that they do not have an effective domestic remedy at the national level to complain about such allocation or transfer.
3. On 28 October 2021 the Government submitted information about the amendments to the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the “CES”) and asked to treat the new legislative provisions as introducing a new remedy in respect of the applicants’ complaints. They asked the Court to declare the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible for the applicants’ failure to exhaust an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances. Some of the applicants submitted comments, questioning the effectiveness of the newly introduced remedy.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
5. 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 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 (Dadusenko and Others, cited above, §§ 25‑34).
6. In the present applications, 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 applicants have lodged prima facie well‑founded complaints, the amended CES affords them an opportunity to obtain adequate redress by lodging a transfer request with the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences and/or challenging the proportionality of the refusal of transfer in court. Accordingly, the applicants should exhaust this remedy before their complaints can be examined by the Court. It follows that these complaints under Article 8 of the Convention should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
7. The Court has found above that the applicants have an effective remedy at their disposal which they have been required to use for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Accordingly, their complaints 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.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2022.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Family member
Place of residence of the family member
Other complaints under well-established case-law
55341/17
15/07/2017
and
13857/20
28/02/2020
(12 applicants)
Household
Semed Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
1982
Kazimagomed Nurmagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
1942
Feroza Kazimagomedovna GADZHITAYEVA
1968
Marifa Kazimagomedovna MIRZABEKOVA
1973
Alim Semedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
2014
Arsen Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
1969
Rafik Kazimagomedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
1971
Said Semedovich NURMAGOMEDOV
2011
Anisa Semedovna NURMAGOMEDOVA
2010
Irade Nizamutdinova NURMAGOMEDOVA
1986
Suna Gasratovna NURMAGOMEDOVA
1943
Zaynab Semedovna NURMAGOMEDOVA
2013
Zarifa Kazimagomedovna SHAKHSINOVA
1976
Miller Irina Vladimirovna
Kansk
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region
twelve applicants are close relatives of Mr Semed Nurmagomedov - a detainee and the applicant in case no. 55341/17, they are parents, wife, children, siblings of Mr Semed Nurmagomedov
Aleksino, Moscow Region,
Dagestan Republic
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
7897/18
30/01/2018
Aslan Magomedovich CHERKESOV
1984
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
IK-17 Krasnoyarsk Region / Prison Minusinsk - Krasnoyarsk Region
mother, wife, child, sister
Nalchik,
Kabardino-Balkariya Republic
14524/18
16/03/2018
(3 applicants)
Household
Alim Borisovich BITOKHOV
1983
Boris Lelevich BITOKHOV
1945
Lora Karalbiyevna BITOKHOVA
1947
Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna
Balashikha
IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region
the first applicant is the inmate, the second applicant is his father, the third applicant is his mother
Psygansu,
Kabardino-Balkariya Republic
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
33067/18
03/07/2018
Fatimat Gitcheyevna TEKAYEVA
1952
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
IK-6 Orenburg Region
the applicant is the mother of an inmate
Khasanya,
Kabardino-Balkar Republic
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
4915/19
29/12/2018
(3 applicants)
Household
Yakov Vladimirovich TSOY
1973
Yelizoveta KIM
1938
Vasilisa Vladimirovna TSOY
1961
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Moscow
IK-2 OIK-2 Perm Region
the first applicant is an inmate; the second applicant is his sister, and the third applicant is his mother
Khabarovsk Region
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
58975/19
06/11/2019
Household
Nabi Ramazanovich GADZHIYEV
1987
Shayman Gurbanayevna GADZHIYEVA
1957
Radnayeva Nadezhda Valeryevna
Balashikha
IK-7 Mordoviya Republic
the first applicant is an inmate and the second applicant is his mother
Chechen Republic
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
62841/19
13/11/2019
Nina Mikhaylovna MIKLASHEVICH
1950
Golubenko Andrey Yevgenyevich
Krasnodar
IK-6 Orenburg Region
the applicant is the mother of a detainee
Novorossiysk,
Krasnodar Region
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
64878/19
28/11/2019
Bobomurod Ruzi ugli SUYUNOV
1993
Kudryavtsev Aleksey Gennadyevich
Kolpino
IK-5 Orenburg Region, from 25/05/2018 to 17/07/2020,
IK-9 Orenburg Region, from 17/07/2020
wife, child
St Petersburg
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
25282/20
01/06/2020
Aleksandr Ivanovich DEVYATOV
1976
Yermakov Vladislav Yevgenyevich
Troitsk
IK-6 Khabarovsk Region
children, sister, wife
Chelyabinsk
32068/20
24/07/2020
(9 applicants)
Household
Tamara Yakubovna IBRAGIMOVA
1953
Yunus Imranovich KHADZHIYEV
2006
Yusha Smailovich KHADZHIYEV
1950
Ayshat Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA
2005
Khadizha Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA
2014
Khava Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA
2010
Malika Mukhadinovna KHADZHIYEVA
1976
Petimat Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA
2008
Safia Imranovna KHADZHIYEVA
2011
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
IK-12 Nizhniy Novgorod Region
the applicants are mother, wife and six children of Mr Imran Khadzhiyev, a detainee
Grozny, Chechen Republic
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony
32362/20
10/07/2020
Household
Veronika Vadimovna KOROLEVA
1981
Nikolay Valentinovich KOROLEV
1981
Ryabukhina Anastasiya Sergeyevna
Strasbourg
IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region
the first applicant is a detainee, the second applicant is his wife, the first applicant also complained that he is unable to see his parents
Moscow
36847/20
03/07/2020
Oleg Viktorovich SUKHOCHEV
1963
Startseva Tatyana Vladimirovna
Alapayevsk
Prison in Krasnoyarsk Region
children, mother, sister, wife
Nizhniy Tagil
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - in respect of allocation to a remote colony