THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 59250/19 Yevgeniy Ivanovich TITOVSKIY against Russia and 2 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 September 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli , President,

Andreas Zünd ,

Frédéric Krenc , judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

The applicants complained of their allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations. They relied on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, which read, in so far as relevant, 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.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

In its recent decisions of Dadusenko and Others v. Russia ((dec.), no. 36027/19 and 3 others, 7 September 2021) and Tamamshev and Others v. Russia ((dec.) [Committee], nos. 57368/19 and 59831/19, §§ 22-23, 7 September 2021), the Court accepted that the amendments to the Russian Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the “CES”) introduced on 1 April 2020 (in force since 29 September 2020) constituted an appropriate response to its earlier judgments finding violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention because the aforementioned legislation fell short of the “quality of law” requirement as it did not expressly list the family considerations among the factors to be taken into account when allocating convicts to penitentiary institutions (ibid., §§ 25 and 30).

As regards the applicants’ individual situation, they were released on the dates indicated in the Appendix and no longer face any particular obstacles or difficulty in maintaining their family life.

In addition, the Court does not disregard that the first applicant lodged his application before the adoption of the new amendments but was only released one year and seven months after its entry into force. Yet, there is no indication that he ever tried to use the new remedy to obtain his transfer closer to his family for the remaining part of his sentence. The applicant had thus chosen not to pursue his complaint through a reasonable legal avenue on the domestic level. The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Shtolts and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 77056/14, § 90, 30 January 2018, with further references). Therefore, the applicant failed to demonstrate necessary diligence on his part, which would justify that the Court continues the examination of his application (compare with Goryachev v. Russia (dec.), no. 34886/06, § 42, 9 April 2013).

As regards the second and third applicants, their applications were lodged with the Court only after their release or the release of their detained family member. Also, it does not seem that the third applicant had ever requested his transfer at the domestic level. In any event, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning structural problems at the domestic level its role, once the general measures have been implemented by the respondent State, cannot be converted into providing individualised financial relief in repetitive cases arising from the same systemic situation (see Tamamshev and Others , cited above, § 23, with further references).

In view of the above, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, there are no particular reasons regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which would require the Court to continue its examination of the case under Article 37 § 1 in fine .

Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 13 October 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention

(allocation or transfer to a remote penal facility irrespective of family life considerations)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Detention facility

Family member

Place of residence of the family member

Approximate distance between the facility and the place of residence of the family members

(in km)

Date of conviction and sentence

Date of release

Other complaints under well-established case-law

59250/19

02/08/2019

Yevgeniy Ivanovich TITOVSKIY

1979IK-49 Komi Republic

The applicant was a detainee, his relatives are mother, children

Khomutovka, Kursk Region

2,300

Convicted on 28/12/2017 to 8 years

Released on 18/04/2022

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote colony

41382/20

28/08/2020

Vladimir Alekseyevich BUDNIKOV

1946IK-5 Kirov Region

The applicant is the father of a detainee

Klimovo, Bryansk Region

2,000

Convicted on

17/05/2016 to 8 years

Released on 24/03/2020

55615/20

26/11/2020

Vadim Leonidovich MOSIN

1986Aleksey Igorevich Korneyev

Bryansk

IK-5 Kirov Region

The applicant was a detainee, his relatives are father, mother

Bryansk Region

1,400

Convicted on 10/01/2018 to 3 years

Released on 03/07/2020

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of allocation to a remote detention facility.