CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 9348/14 Andrey Igorevich RESIN against Russia lodged on 17 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a life prisoner. The case concerns various restrictions on visiting rights of his family members (IK-56: no more than two adult visitors at a time, glass separation and presence of a guard; Khabarovsk remand prison no. 1: refusal of a long-term visit by his mother and sister, refusal of a short-term visit by three family members, without glass partition). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the restrictions on the manner of conducting family visits in the IK-56 facility, including the number of adults visitors, glass partition and the presence of a guard (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106, 123-26, 146, ECHR 2015, and Trosin v. Ukraine , no. 39758/05, §§ 39-47, 23 February 2012)?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the refusal of a long-term visit in Khabarovsk remand prison no. 1 and a refusal of a short-term visit without glass partition and presence of a guard (see Khoroshenko , cited above, §§ 146-49, and Moiseyev v. Russia , no.   62936/00, §§   257-59, 9 October 2008)?   3.     Was there a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, as regards the difference in treatment between remand detainees and convicted prisoners with regard to family visits, during the applicant’s stay in Khabarovsk remand prison no. 1 where facilities for long-term visits were available (see Varnas v. Lithuania , no.   42615/06, §§ 115-23, 9 July 2013)?