CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 2023

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary March 2023 Deltuva v. Lithuania - 38144/20 Judgment 21.3.2023 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Restriction of remand prisoner’s family visits with wife and ten-year-old daughter during first nine months of detention based on unsubstantiated risk of interference with ongoing investigation: violation Facts – In November 2019, the applicant was arrested and remanded in detention on suspicion of playing a leading role in drug smuggling. During the first nine months of his detention despite several requests, the prosecutor only granted the applicant one visit from his wife and his then ten-year-old daughter on the grounds such visits might interfere with the success of the criminal investigation. The granted request had been accompanied by a psychologist report that had assessed the applicant’s daughter as suffering from great stress and anxiety because of the inability to see her father and recommended contact as soon as possible. In August 2020 the prosecutor granted the applicant the right to receive two monthly contactless visits from his wife and daughter. In November 2020 the applicant was released and placed under close supervision at his home. The criminal proceedings are still pending. Law – Article 8: The restriction on the applicant receiving family visits during the first nine months of his detention on remand had constituted an interference with his right to respect for his family life. The restriction had been in accordance with the law and had pursued the legitimate aim of prevention of disorder or crime. The Court, however, considered it had not been necessary in a democratic society for the following reasons. Certain restrictions on the applicant’s contact with the outside world had been reasonably necessary in view of the organised nature of the crimes of which he had been suspected, the fact not all the suspects had yet been identified and various investigative measures were still being carried out during the time he had been detained. However, States were required to consider the interests of the prisoner and his or her family members and to evaluate them not in terms of broad generalities but in relation to the specific situation. The decisions to grant the applicant one visit from his wife and daughter and subsequently two family visits per month had been taken after an individualised assessment of his situation. However, during the remainder of his detention on remand, the authorities’ refusals to grant the applicant visits from his wife and daughter had been based essentially on the argument that he might seek to interfere with the investigation by using them. The domestic authorities had failed to substantiate why they had considered such a risk to be present in their particular circumstances. The applicant’s wife and daughter had not been suspects or witnesses to the criminal proceedings, the authorities had not challenged the applicant’s assertion that they had not had any connection to the other suspects and had not been familiar with the criminal case or alleged that they had attempted in any way to interfere with the investigation. The authorities had accorded significant weight when refusing the applicant family visits on the fact that, on two occasions, he had unlawfully obtained a mobile phone while in detention without it having been established that he had used it in ways which could have undermined the success of the investigation. There had also been no indication that the authorities had properly considered the applicant’s proposals that family visits could have taken place in the presence of his lawyer or an investigating officer. At the material time, the domestic law had provided for contactless visits in the presence of a representative of the detention facility, and visits could be terminated for breaches of visiting rules. Accordingly, the domestic authorities had failed to demonstrate that allowing the applicant to meet with his wife and daughter under special visiting arrangements would have jeopardised the investigation. Furthermore, at the material time, the applicant’s daughter had been ten years old. The Court took note of the relevant international material regarding the importance for children of maintaining a bond with their incarcerated parents. Indeed, the distress that had been suffered by the applicant’s daughter because of the inability to see her father had been established by a psychologist and acknowledged by the domestic authorities on the one occasion when a family visit had been granted. Although the authorities had appeared to question the closeness of the applicant’s relationship with his daughter, the Court found it difficult to accept that their subjective assessment questioning the strength of a detainee’s family bonds could be decisive for refusing family visits. Lastly, the domestic authorities had not provided any explanation of how a visit from a ten-year-old child could have affected the success of the criminal proceedings. Conclusion: violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .