CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 septembre 2001

.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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35 October 2001 Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.) - 47095/99 Decision 18.9.2001 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Restriction on family visits of person placed in detention on remand: inadmissible Article 5 Article 5-3 Length of pre-trial detention Detention on remand lasting more than four years: admissible The applicant, president of a commercial bank, was charged with embezzlement and placed in detention on remand in June 1995. The examination of the case by the City Court started in November 1996, but was adjourned in May 1997. In February 1998, the applicant was informed that the City Court would not resume consideration of his case before July 1998, given the complexity of the case and the workload of the court. The applicant made numerous unsuccessful requests for release, complaining both of the length of his pre-trial detention and the poor conditions of the detention. In August 1999, the City Court found him guilty on one count and acquitted him on two others. He was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, the term of which had started running from his placement in detention in June 1995. However, in a separate ruling, the court sent part of the indictment back to the prosecutor for further investigation. The applicant lodged two extraordinary appeals against the City Court’s judgment of August 1999 with the Supreme Court which rejected them both. In September 1999, the proceedings concerning the remainder of the charges were terminated as the acts committed by the applicant did not constitute a criminal offence. A new charge was brought against him in September 1999, but he was acquitted of it in March 2000. In June 2000, he was released from prison following an amnesty. As regards the conditions of his detention, the applicant alleges that he was kept in a cell of 17 square meters, with 8 beds, where up to 24 inmates were held. Due to the poor hygiene of the cell, he caught skin diseases and fungal infections. The toilet facilities were in a corner of the cell in such a way that they offered no privacy. He further contended that he could take a walk outside the cell one hour per day and he had access to a shower with hot water only twice a month. Moreover, during the preliminary investigation, the applicant was denied family visits in custody. Admissible under Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 6 § 1. Inadmissible under Article 8: The Court could only examine this complaint insofar as it concerned facts having occurred after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998. The applicant was allowed regular meetings with his family, although subject to certain restrictions as to their nature, frequency and duration which constituted an interference with his respect for family life. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime. The applicant was detained on remand on grounds of the gravity of the charges against him and the danger of his obstructing the conduct of the investigations. The aim of preventing disorder or crime may justify wider measures of interference in a case of a person held on remand since in such a case there is often a risk of collusion. In the instant case, the restrictions on the number and duration of family visits within the limits set by domestic law was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. As to the situation of conjugal visits, movements of reform are taking place in several European countries to improve conditions of imprisonment by facilitating such visits. However, the Court considered that the refusal of conjugal visits could for the present time be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder and crime: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes