CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 30 May 2016   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 13394/13 and 67441/13 Aidas KAZLAUSKAS against Lithuania and Mindaugas BARTAŠEVIČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 4 February 2013 and 3 October 2013 respectively 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. 13394/13 was lodged on 4   February 2013 by Aidas   Kazlauskas, who was born on 21   September   1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. The applicant has been serving a life sentence in Lukiškės Remand Prison since 1994. In 2009 he married. At that time his wife was also serving a sentence in the same prison. In 2011 she was transferred to Panevėžys Correctional Facility. In 2011 the applicant wrote to his prison administration to request a conjugal visit. His request was granted, however, the governor of the correctional facility refused to bring his wife to the visit. On 26 July 2011 the applicant complained to the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. On 1 August 2011 the complaint was sent to the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice. On 12 August 2011 he received a response from the Prison Department that he did not have a right to long-term visits because he was serving his sentence in prison. On 17   February 2012 he received the same response from the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. On 27 February 2012 he received a response from the Ministry of Justice that long-term visits were not available to convicts who were serving their sentences in prison. He was also informed that in accordance with domestic law he would have been entitled to a long ‑ term visit if he had been transferred to a correctional facility. He also requested that Parliament change the Code on the Execution of Sentences in order to allow spouses who were both serving sentences in different prisons the opportunity to have three long-term or short-term visits per year. On 18   September 2012 his request was dismissed. The applicant started court proceedings and on 12 July 2012 the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court adopted a decision holding that the applicant and his wife had a right to a short-term visit and that his wife also had a right to a long-term visit. The court therefore obliged Panevėžys Correctional Facility to organise a short-term visit for the applicant and his wife. The Prison Department appealed and on 20 December 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court held that a convict serving a life sentence in prison had a right to short-term visits every two months. However, it also held that the court of first instance should not have obliged the correctional facility to organise a short-term visit and instead obliged it to reconsider the applicant’s request to be allowed a conjugal visit. Following the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, on 25   April 2013 the applicant received a response from Panevėžys Correctional Facility that it had decided to bring his wife for a short-term visit to Lukiškės Remand Prison.   2.     Application no. 67441/13 was lodged on 3   October 2013 by Mindaugas   Bartaševičius, who was born on 5   June   1980 and is detained in Alytus Correctional Facility. In 2008 the applicant started serving his sentence in Marijampolė Correctional Facility. He married the same year. His wife is serving a prison sentence in Panevėžys Correctional Facility. On 25 August 2011 the applicant requested the authorities of his correctional facility to allow him a long-term visit from 15 to 17 November 2011. His request was refused on 2 September 2011. The authorities stated that because he had already been granted a visit from 1 to 3 August 2011 and the maximum number of long-term visits was two visits per year every six months, he could not have been allowed another long-term visit. This was confirmed by the Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice on 26 September 2011. The applicant started court proceedings and requested 3,000   Lithuanian   litai (LTL, approximately 868 euros (EUR)) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage from the State for not allowing him the long-term visit from 15 to 17 November 2011. On 23 April 2012 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded, holding that he had been granted long-term visits from 1 to 3   August 2011 and 1 to 3 February 2012. Although it had refused to grant him a long-term visit from 15 to 17 November 2011, he had not proved that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage. The applicant appealed and on 15 April 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court held that the main issue of the case was whether the provisions of domestic law that made it possible for spouses who were both serving prison sentences to have two long-term visits per year meant that they were entitled to have long-term visits every six months. The court established that the right to long-term visits could not have been interpreted as depending solely on the discretion of the prison administrations and that the law did not require that the second long-term visit that year could only be granted six months after the first visit. The court held that Marijampolė Correctional Facility had overstepped its authority and as a consequence the applicant had suffered non-pecuniary damage. He was accordingly given EUR 86 in compensation. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to Alytus Correctional Facility, where he is currently detained. On 1 September 2012 he participated in a fight with some convicts and on 6 September 2012 was transferred to the strict regime unit for one year. On 11   September 2012 he was also placed in solitary confinement for six   months because he had refused to give a urine sample for some drug tests. On 6 June 2013 the applicant received a letter from Alytus Correctional Facility stating that he would not be allowed short-term or long-term visits while he was in the strict regime unit. B.     Relevant domestic law For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Varnas v. Lithuania (no.   42615/06, §§ 59-61, 9 July 2013). In addition, Article 94 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences at the material time provided that spouses who were both serving prison sentences were entitled to two long-term visits per year. The location of such visits was to be determined by the prison authorities and the transfer costs had to be covered by convicts. COMPLAINTS Both applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal of their requests to be allowed conjugal visits with their imprisoned spouses. The first applicant further complains under Article 8 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that he suffered discrimination as a convict serving a sentence in prison as he was not entitled to long-term conjugal visits.   COMMON QUESTION Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life in refusing to allow them conjugal visits, 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? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Case no. 13394/13. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his status as a convict serving a sentence in prison as opposed to a prisoner serving a sentence in a correctional facility, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention?   Case no. 67441/13. Can the applicant still be considered to be a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in view of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court finding a violation of his rights and awarding him 86 euros in non-pecuniary damage?