Communicated on 29 June 2020 Published on 20 July 2020

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 35245/19 Romeo KALDA against Estonia lodged on 26 June 2019

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns short-terms visits in prison during which the applicant was separated from his wife by a glass partition and could talk to her only over an intercom phone. The applicant is sentenced for life and is serving his sentence in a heightened security division of the Viru Prison.

The Tartu County Court found in substance that the Internal Prison Rules ( vangla sisekorraeeskiri ) did not enable the prison authorities to exercise discretion when addressing the applicant ’ s request to meet his wife without the glass partition and the use of intercom phone. They were thus bound to dismiss his application. The court did not consider it relevant whether the prison had any meeting rooms where meetings without glass partition could be held. Although the Tartu Court of Appeal raised doubts as to the formal constitutionality of the relevant domestic legislation and noted that the constructional specificities could not, by themselves, justify the use of glass partition during meetings, it nonetheless upheld the first-instance court ’ s judgment. It noted that the applicant had not substantiated how the use of glass partition had violated his rights. It added that the restriction had in any event been lawful given the applicant ’ s dangerousness. The Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

The applicant complained that the conditions under which he was allowed to have short-term meetings with his wife violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. He noted that the prion did not, in fact, have rooms where such meetings could be held without glass partition. He also noted having been allowed long-term visits with his wife where such physical barriers had not been applied.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, given that the applicant was, during visits of his wife, separated from her by the glass partition and he could talk to her only on the intercom phone? ( see Resin v. Russia , no. 9348/14, §§ 28-34, 18 December 2018; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Trosin v. Ukraine , no. 39758/05, §§ 42-43 and 46, 23 February 2012).

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the domestic legislation and the way it was implemented strike a fair balance between the applicants ’ rights and the aims that were sought to be achieved through the having physical barrier between the applicant and his wife during short-term visits?

What is the relevance – from the necessity aspect of the analyses – of the individual risk assessment of the applicant (as referred to by the Tartu Court of Appeal) against the background of the imperative provision of the Internal Prison Rules that left no degree of flexibility to the prison authorities in deciding whether to use the glass partition or not with respect to the visits that the applicant had requested?

The Government is asked to specify whether there are rooms in the Viru Prison, designated for short-term meetings, which do not have the glass partition. The Government is also asked to specify whether and under which conditions has the applicant been able to meet his wife for long-term meetings.