CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 26 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 22392/20 Virgo RAUDSEPP against Estonia lodged on 16 May 2020 communicated on 5 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns refusals to allow the applicant to have long-term visits in prison from his co-habiting partner and three children over a total period of approximately two years and nine months. During this period his applications (altogether six) to have long-term visits were dismissed, initially by reference to his status as a remand prisoner and later due to him either having been under a reception regime, or due to him not having lodged the relevant application in time. In the domestic compensation proceedings – as the Supreme Court had in 2019 declared unconstitutional the statutory provision prohibiting the remand prisoners from having long-term visits – the applicant was awarded 250 euros (EUR) for not having been able to have such meetings as a remand prisoner. The applicant’s claim for compensation concerning the time period when he was under a reception regime was dismissed, referring to the aims that this regime served. The applicant complains under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention that he was discriminated against in comparison to convicted prisoners who are generally allowed long-term visits.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as remand prisoner contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see Chaldayev v. Russia , no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019 ; Costel Gaciu v. Romania , no. 39633/10,§§ 47-62, 23 June 2015; Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, §§ 106-122, 9 July 2013)? 2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as convicted prisoner under a reception regime contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, especially taking into account that he had already spent appoximately two and half years in the same prison as a remand prisoner immediately prior to his conviction and being subjected to the reception regime (see, mutatis mutandis , the case-law referred above)?   The Government is requested to submit the documents concerning the decisions by which the Tartu Prison dismissed the applicant’s applications, dated 1 September 2014 and 17 September 2014, to have long-term visits.