Communicated on 10 December 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 72792/17 Aleksandr Dmitriyevich BIKBULATOV against Russia lodged on 19 September 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Dmitriyevich Bikbulatov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1987.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is one of six co-defendants in the criminal proceedings in which they stand trial for conspiracy to commit multiple murders, robberies and acts of extortion.

On 9 June 2016 the case was submitted for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic.

On 2 February 2017 the applicant asked the trial judge for permission to see his mother, wife and children. On 22 February 2017 the judge replied that he would be allowed a visit after the judgment had been passed.

On 26 May 2017 the judge issued a reasoned decision. In his view, the application for prison visits was to be refused because the applicant stood trial together with his father and brother who were held in the same prison. The trial had not yet finished, more witnesses were to be heard and further evidence produced. He had not pleaded guilty and he had been part of a criminal enterprise.

The applicant filed an appeal. He complained that the decision did not give a specific reason for refusing his application to see his wife and children. They were not witnesses in the trial.

On 11 August 2017 the Supreme Court disallowed the appeal, holding that the decision of 26 May 2017 “did not affect the interests of the defendant Bikbulatov in the framework of the criminal proceedings and was not relevant to him”.

On 5 February 2018 the applicant was found guilty and given a custodial sentence. On 16 February 2018 he was allowed to have a one-hour-long meeting with his family in the remand prison. They were separated by two glass barriers set two metres away from each other and spoke on the interphone. An officer listened in to their conversation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about unjustified restrictions on family visits during the trial and after the conviction. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8, that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for that grievance.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the ban on family visits in the period from 9 June 2016 till 16 February 2018?

2. Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about a restriction on family visits, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. As regards the post-conviction period, was the physical separation of the applicant and his family and constant supervision of their meeting compatible with Article 8 of the Convention?