CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA875FB86 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 December 2018   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 7613/18 and 12222/18 Tarko VOOL against Estonia and Janek TOOMIK against Estonia lodged on 31 January 2018 and 5 March 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern a general ban provided in the Imprisonment Act ( Vangistusseadus ) on remanded prisoners to receive long-term family visits, despite such visits being generally authorised to convicted prisoners. The applicant in case no. 7613/18 (Vool) was remanded in custody on 16   April 2014. Between 23 February 2015 and 8   May 2016 he lodged several requests with the prison authorities to receive long-term family visits. The applicant in case no. 12222/18 (Toomik) was remanded in custody on 14   December 2011. On 15   April 2014 he lodged a written request with the prison authorities to receive a long-term family visit. According to the application he had previously made such requests only orally. Prison authorities refused the applicants’ requests relying on a provision of the Imprisonment Act under which long-term visits were not allowed to prisoners on remand. Both applicants lodged appeals, which were dismissed by domestic courts. The Supreme Court held in both cases that the general ban on remanded prisoners receiving long-term visits was necessary in the interests of ongoing criminal proceedings and that the proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ family life had been considered when they had been detained and when decisions extending their detention had been taken. The applicants obtained the right to receive long-term visits on 1   November 2016 and 6 June 2014, respectively, when the decisions on their convictions came into force.   QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their status as remand prisoners contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 of the Convention (see Costel Gaciu v. Romania , no. 39633/10, 23   June 2015; Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013; Laduna v.   Slovakia , no. 31827/02, ECHR 2011)?   The Government are invited to submit copies of any relevant documents concerning the grounds for the applicants’ detention, including in particular the arrest warrants, the decisions on remanding them in custody, and decisions on extending their detention. APPENDIX   Application no 7613/18 Tarko VOOL is an Estonian national who was born in 1988, lives in Võru and is represented by M. Põbo.   Application no 12222/18 Janek TOOMIK is an Estonian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Jõgeva.