Lexploria

Communicated on 6 September 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 32948/17 Oleg Yuryevich DUBOV against Russia and 8 others – see appended list

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the prison authority of their facilities put pressure on them to withdraw their complaints to the Court and otherwise interfered with their ability to correspond with it.

The applicant in case no. 38974/17 also raises Article 8 in connection with his grievances and alleges a violation of that provision.

The details of their allegations are set out in the Appendix.

The table of cases:

No.

Application number

Introduction date

Name of the applicant(s) ; date of birth

place of residence

1

32948/17

27/06/2017

Oleg Yuryevich DUBOV;

14/03/1968; the Nizhniy Novgorod Region

2

59662/17

29/07/2017

Andrey Nikolayevich KARPOV;

31/01/1970; Chelyabinsk

3

70842/17

1/09/2017

Dmitriy Vladimirovich KOLCHIN;

27/03/1971; Kirov

4

4502/18

14/12/2017

Maksim Eduardovich BUTAKOV;

30/04/1988; Zlatoust, the Chelyabinsk Region

5

9630/18

15/02/2018

Mikhail Mikhaylovich CHEMYAKIN;

23/03/1988; Zlatoust, the Chelyabinsk Region

6

73730/17

2/10/2017

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich MAZAYEV;

4/07/1987; the Zabaykalskiy Region

7

43455/17

19/04/2017

Vitaliy Viktorovich STARIKOV;

7/01/1980; Krasnoyarsk

8

82332/17

6/11/2017

Marat Farukovich MAZITOV;

30/12/1972; Moscow

9

38974/17

10/08/2017

Viktor Ivanovich YAKOTSUTS;

6/08/1977; Republic of Khakassiya

QUESTIONS

1. Was there a hindrance with the applicants ’ right of individual petition set out in Article 34 of the Convention and, if so, was it compatible with that Convention provision?

2. In respect of case no. 38974/17, was there a interference with the applicant ’ s rights under Article 8 of the Convention and, if so, was it compatible with that Convention provision?

2. The Government are requested to comment in detail on each of the applicants ’ allegation described in the attached table.

APPENDIX

No

Application No. and Title

Name of the facility

A pending or already decided FT WECL case by the same applicant

Allegations under Article 34 of the Convention

Proof submitted

1

32948/17

Dubov v. Russia

IK-11

16992/16

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- threats that early conditional release would be impossible;

- interviews during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court;

The reason for this pressure, as explained by the prison authority, was the fact that s uch prisoners “ lack ed patriotic sentiments and they fel t no compassion for the financial situation of the treasury of the Motherland ” .

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. An article in Novaya Gazeta no. 58 of 2 June 2017 (mentioning the applicant by his name).

2

59662/17

Karpov v. Russia

IK-11

18305/17

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- threats that early conditional release would be impossible;

- interviews during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court;

- the authority crossed his name out from the list of encouragements with a note "ECHR". T he list is normally submitted to a commission that considers prisoners ’ applications for conditional release. As a result a prisoner loses encouragements and his chances for the release reduce.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. A c opy of the mentioned list with the applicant ’ s name barred out and a note “ECHR”.

3

70842/17

Kolchin v. Russia

IK-11

78709/17

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- threats that early conditional release would be impossible;

- interviews during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court;

- the authority crossed his name out from the list of encouragements with a note "ECHR". T he list is normally submitted to a commission that considers prisoners ’ applications for conditional release. As a result a prisoner loses encouragements and his chances for the release reduce.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. A c opy of the mentioned list with the applicant ’ s name barred out and a note “ECHR”.

4

4502/18

Butakov v. Russia

IK-11

43327/17, 74977/17, 80387/17

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- threats that early conditional release would be impossible;

- interviews during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. Witness statement of inmate S.K. dated 3 February 2018

3. Witness statement of inmate M.F. dated 12 February 2018;

4. An article in Novaya Gazeta no. 58 of 2 June 2017 (mentioning the applicant by his name).

5

9630/18

Chemyakin v. Russia

IK-11

13433/18

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- threats that early conditional release would be impossible;

- interviews during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. Witness statement of inmate M.Ch. dated 10 October 2017

3. An article in Novaya Gazeta no. 58 of 2 June 2017 (mentioning the applicant by his name).

6

73730/17

Mazayev v. Russia

IK-2

15672/17

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- “special control” by prison authority;

- verbal abuse by the prison authority;

- an interview during which the authorities tried to convince the applicant to withdraw his applications to the Court;

- placement in a disciplinary cell without any grounds.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. The fact that the interview took place is acknowledged in the prosecutor ’ s letter of 2 June 2017 no. 97zh-2017;

3. Witness statement of R.M. dated 20 June 2016;

4. Witness statement of D.S. dated 26 June 2016;

5. Witness statement of V.M. dated 25 April 2017;

6. Witness statement of A.B. dated 28 April 2017;

7. Witness statement of N.K. dated 28 April 2017;

8. Witness statement of N.S. dated 27 May 2017.

7

43455/17

Starikov v. Russia

IK-5

49580/17

77356/14

14128/14

64761/13

63741/12

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- alleged seizure of the applicant ’ s correspondence with the ECHR by prison authority.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. First instance decision of the Tverskoy District Court dated 1 April 2015 which appeared to have confirmed the alleged seizure of documents (see page 3 of the decision).

8

82332/17

Mazitov v. Russia

IZ-6

n/a, 29 other cases

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- on 10 April 2017 the applicant met his representative before the ECHR in the IZ. During the meeting the applicant and his representative were divided by a glass partition, had to use the phone to talk and could not exchange documents; the phone conversations were listened to by the administration.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. Statement by the applicant ’ s lawyer K.K. dated 18 January 2018;

3. Copies of various prison documents confirming the meeting of 10 April 2017.

9

38974/17

Yakotsuts v. Russia

IK-2

67363/17, 39996/16

The applicant alleged having been subjected to pressure in the following ways:

- o n 7 September 2016 he sent an application to the ECHR (app. no. 39996/16). The next day he was invited to one of the detention facility ’ s officials who wanted him to draft a written statement on his refusal to send his application to the ECHR. When the applicant refused to do so, he was threatened that he would be transferred to the strict conditions of detention. On 9 September 2016 the applicant wrote a complaint to the local prosecutor ’ s office. Later he was informed that his complaint had not been dispatched. The detention facility ’ s administration refused to provide him with a written reply;

- on 23 April 2017 the applicant and other prisoners, who had lodged applications with the ECHR, were summoned to the Deputy Head of IK-2 Zabaykalskiy Region. The prisoners were called into his office one by one. Because of the evening roll call the applicant did not happen to talk to the Deputy Head. Later his fellow prisoners told him that the Deputy Head wanted them not to correspond with the ECHR any further, insulted them and threatened that he would transfer them to the strict conditions of detention;

- on 19 May 2017 the applicant was transferred to a disciplinary cell for 10 days on the pretext of a minor misbehaviour. According to the applicant, during the disciplinary committee ’ s meeting the Deputy Head had noted that he should not have complained about the detention facility ’ s administration ’ s actions;

- on 7 June 2017 the applicant was transferred to the strict conditions of detention. On 9, 15 and 22 June 2017 the applicant wrote 3 letters to the local prosecutor ’ s office, however, he was not provided with any information about their dispatch by the detention facility ’ s administration. Later the central office of the detention facility informed the head of the applicant ’ s brigade that they had not received any of those letters.

1. Allegations in the application form;

2. Witness statement of inmate N.K. dated 12 May 2017;

3. Witness statement of inmate D.M. dated 11 May 2017;

4. Witness statement of inmate O.U. dated 30 June 2017;

5. Witness statement of inmate A.P. dated 28 June 2017.

Menu

DUBOV v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

DUBOV v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications

LEXI