Case of European Court of Human Rights, January 21, 2021 (case SAIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA)

• Defense: RUSSIA
• Resolution Date: January 21, 2021

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SAIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 55829/15 and 8 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 January 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Saidov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President,Dmitry Dedov,Peeter Roosma, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

   THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

   THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The applicants complained principally of the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

   Article 8

   “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

7. The Court reiterates that it has already established that it is an essential part of a prisoner’s right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or her, or if need be assist him or her, to maintain contact with his or her close family (see, with further references, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 106, ECHR 2015), and that, on the issue of family visits, Article 8 of the Convention requires States to take into account the interests of the convict and his or her relatives and family members (ibid., § 142). The Court has also found that placing a convict in a particular penal...