CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 7 November 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35237/14 Valentina Dmitriyevna YERMAKOVICH against Russia lodged on 12 March 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Valentina Dmitriyevna Yermakovich, is a Russian and Belorusian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Marusino, in the Moscow Region. She is represented before the Court by Ms O. Tseytlina and Ms N. Shvechkova, lawyers practising in St Petersburg. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s arrest and detention with a view to extradition On 1   August 2000 the Ministry of the Interior of Belarus ordered the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of her having committed several criminal offences. On an unspecified date her name was put on the international wanted persons’ list. On 18   February 2014 the applicant was arrested in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region. On 20   February 2014 the Lyubertsy Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised the applicant’s detention for forty days pending her extradition to Belarus. On 28   March 2014 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18   August 2014. On 18   August 2014 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18   February 2015. On 18   September 2014 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 18   August 2014 on appeal. On 10   February 2015 the Town Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release on the undertaking not to leave town. On 20   August and 21   September 2015 the investigative committee of the Republic of Belarus discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 4   February 2016 the Lyubertsy Town Prosecutor discontinued the extradition proceedings against the applicant. B.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention and transport From 21   February 2014 to 10   February 2015 the applicant was detained in remand prison SIZO-6 in the Moscow Region. The cells where the applicant was held were overcrowded and dirty. The walls were covered with mold and fungus. The lighting was insufficient during the day time and was not turned off during the night. The inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week during 15 minutes. The food was of low quality. No fruit or vegetables were available. The inmates were allowed one hour of daily exercise in a prison yard with no sport facilities. During the transport from the remand prison to the courthouse, the applicant was placed in a compartment measuring 1 by 0.7 m, often with another inmate. The journey lasted from 2.5 to 3 hours. Upon return to the remand prison, the applicant was placed in a holding cell measuring 1 by 1.5 m with three other inmates. Prior to being admitted to their cells, the inmates were required to take off their clothes, do several sit-ups and then remain squatted. C.     Family visits On 10   October 2014 the General Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s request to meet with her family and advised her to apply to the law enforcement bodies in Belarus for the approval of her relatives’ visits. On 21   January 2015 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed, without consideration on the merits, the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 10   October 2014. On 11   March 2015 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 21   January 2015 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 6   May 2015 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 10   October 2014. On 17   August 2015 the City Court upheld the decision of 6   May 2015 on appeal. D.     Annulment of the applicant’s Russian passport In 1998, while residing in Belarus, the applicant was issued with a Russian passport by the Russian Consulate in Minsk, Belarus. In 2000 she moved to Russia. In 2004 a district police department issued an internal passport in the applicant’s name. On 16   February 2012 the Moscow City Department of the Federal Migration Service decided, on the basis of the earlier conducted inquiry, that the applicant had received a Russian passport in the absence of legal grounds. On 5   February 2015 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 16   February 2012. On 26   June 2015 the City Court upheld the decision of 5   February 2015. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of her detention and transport. The applicant complains under Article   5   §   4 of the Convention that on 18   August 2014 the Lyuberestsy District Court of the Moscow Region extended her detention for six months and that during that period she had been unable to initiate the review of her detention. The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention that she was unable to meet with her family while in detention. The applicant complains under Article   8 of the Convention that her Russian passport was annulled.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention and transport, in particular the personal space available in the cell/prison van compartment and the sanitary conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention after 18   August 2014, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     As regards the authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant to have family visits while in detention, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   4.     As regards the authorities’ decision invalidating the applicant’s Russian passport, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for he private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?