CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 9 March 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 55659/14 Vladimir Anatolyevich RUDYKH against Russia lodged on 18 October 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns a restriction on telephone communications between the applicant, a life convict, and his lawyers. It also concerns the practice of the applicant’s routine handcuffing in correctional colony no.   IK ‑ 56 in Ivdel, the Sverdlovsk Region, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. QUESTIONS 1.     Does the restriction on telephone communications between the applicant and his lawyers constitute an interference with the applicant’s rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention? If so, is it justified? In particular: (a)     Is the interference “prescribed by law”? Do the relevant regulations meet the “quality of law” requirements? (b)     If so, does it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? (c)     If so, is it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve that/those aim(s)? More specifically, does the domestic law indiscriminately restrict telephone communications between life convicts and their lawyers without regard being had to their personal situations? Does it allow communication between them by any other means? If so, are these means of communication effective in practice? Does the domestic law allow a telephone call to a lawyer in “exceptional circumstances”? If so, who has to decide whether the circumstances fall within that category, and how the administrative practice in that area develops?   2.     How often does the authority of correctional colony no.   IK-56, Ivdel, the Sverdlovsk Region, handcuff the applicant? Does he have to carry heavy objects, or work while handcuffed? What is the legal grounds and justification for handcuffing? Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s handcuffing?   3.     Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convection to complain about routine handcuffing? In particular, does he have at his disposal any preventive and compensatory remedies for his complaint under Article 3? If so, the Government are invited to provide information about the relevant domestic case-law and administrative practice.