I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-10-27
- Communication date: 2018-12-10
- Application number(s): 72792/17
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 8, 8-1, 13
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)
Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.634273
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Bikbulatov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1987.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is one of six co-defendants in the criminal proceedings in which they stand trial for conspiracy to commit multiple murders, robberies and acts of extortion.
On 9 June 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic.
On 2 February 2017 the applicant asked the trial judge for permission to see his mother, wife and children.
On 22 February 2017 the judge replied that he would be allowed a visit after the judgment had been passed.
On 26 May 2017 the judge issued a reasoned decision.
In his view, the application for prison visits was to be refused because the applicant stood trial together with his father and brother who were held in the same prison.
The trial had not yet finished, more witnesses were to be heard and further evidence produced.
He had not pleaded guilty and he had been part of a criminal enterprise.
The applicant filed an appeal.
He complained that the decision did not give a specific reason for refusing his application to see his wife and children.
They were not witnesses in the trial.
On 11 August 2017 the Supreme Court disallowed the appeal, holding that the decision of 26 May 2017 “did not affect the interests of the defendant Bikbulatov in the framework of the criminal proceedings and was not relevant to him”.
On 5 February 2018 the applicant was found guilty and given a custodial sentence.
On 16 February 2018 he was allowed to have a one-hour-long meeting with his family in the remand prison.
They were separated by two glass barriers set two metres away from each other and spoke on the interphone.
An officer listened in to their conversation.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about unjustified restrictions on family visits during the trial and after the conviction.
He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for that grievance.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF ALEKSANDR BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 72792/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Aleksandr Bikbulatov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 September 2017. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms V. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ... . 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
7. The Court has already established in earlier cases against Russia that, in the absence of any factual elements pointing to the danger posed by the prisoner or to the existence of a security risk, the automatic application of restrictions on family visits (including, but not limited to, refusal of long-term visits to convicted prisoners detained in pre-trial detention facilities, separation of a detainee from his visitors preventing any physical contact between them or presence of a prison guard during visits) cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society” and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018; Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019; and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020). 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. It discerns no factual elements justifying the authorities’ refusal of long-term visits to the applicant, his physical separation from the visitors or presence of a prison guard during short-term family visits. Accordingly, the Russian authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation and failed to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 as having been “necessary in a democratic society”. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 10. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29-33, 18 February 2020. 11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021), as well as to the awards made by the Court in the previous cases brough to it by the applicant (see Aleksandr Bikbulatov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29894/17 and 83986/17, 21 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 13. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Type of restriction
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
72792/17
19/09/2017
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV
1987
Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva
Moscow
SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan
refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits
mother, wife, two children
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy to complain about interference with his rights related to family visits in pre-trial detention
200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ALEKSANDR BIKBULATOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 72792/17)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Aleksandr Bikbulatov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 September 2017. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms V. Bokareva, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained principally of the restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities. He relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life ... . 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
7. The Court has already established in earlier cases against Russia that, in the absence of any factual elements pointing to the danger posed by the prisoner or to the existence of a security risk, the automatic application of restrictions on family visits (including, but not limited to, refusal of long-term visits to convicted prisoners detained in pre-trial detention facilities, separation of a detainee from his visitors preventing any physical contact between them or presence of a prison guard during visits) cannot be justified as being “necessary in a democratic society” and amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, 13 February 2018; Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, 18 December 2018; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, 28 May 2019; and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020). 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. It discerns no factual elements justifying the authorities’ refusal of long-term visits to the applicant, his physical separation from the visitors or presence of a prison guard during short-term family visits. Accordingly, the Russian authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation and failed to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 as having been “necessary in a democratic society”. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 10. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Pavlova v. Russia, no. 8578/12, §§ 29-33, 18 February 2020. 11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, 14 December 2021), as well as to the awards made by the Court in the previous cases brough to it by the applicant (see Aleksandr Bikbulatov v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29894/17 and 83986/17, 21 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 13. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
(restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Type of restriction
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
72792/17
19/09/2017
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV
1987
Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva
Moscow
SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan
refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits
mother, wife, two children
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy to complain about interference with his rights related to family visits in pre-trial detention
200
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Detention facility
Type of restriction
Other relevant information
Other complaints under well‐established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
72792/17
19/09/2017
Aleksandr Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV
1987
Valentina Aleksandrovna Bokareva
Moscow
SIZO-1 Republic of Tatarstan
refusal of long-term family visits, physical separation and supervision during short-term family visits, limitation on the frequency of short-term family visits
mother, wife, two children
Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy to complain about interference with his rights related to family visits in pre-trial detention
200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.