CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mai 2019

.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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 May 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11551/13 Boryslav Yevgenovych POLTORATSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 21 August 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns: firstly, the alleged lack of any genuine prospect of the applicant’s release in view of his life-imprisonment sentence; and, secondly, various restrictions on his right to family visits during his sentence. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   3 of the Convention on account of his allegedly irreducible life sentence (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2   others, ECHR 2013 (extracts), László Magyar v. Hungary , no. 73593/10, 20 May 2014, Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 57592/08, 17   January 2017, and Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 2) , no. 41216/13, 12 March 2019)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life under Article   8 of the Convention on account of various limitations on family visits during his sentence (see   Trosin v.   Ukraine , no. 39758/05, 23 February 2012, Khoroshenko v.   Russia , [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015, and Bigun v. Ukraine [Committee], no.   30315/10, 21 March 2019)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an affective domestic remedy for the above complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?