Communicated on 22 January 2018

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 19897/15 Andrey Igorevich RESIN against Russia lodged on 5 April 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the confidentiality of telephone communications between the applicant who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, and his lawyer, carried out in the presence of a prison officer; the existence of an effective domestic remedy to complain in that regard; and the lack of an opportunity for the applicant to participate personally in the first instance and appeal hearings held in his civil case by the Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk, and the Khabarovsk Regional Court on 30 June and 21 November 2014 respectively.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. How often has the applicant contacted his lawyer by telephone? Did their communications concern domestic proceedings or the proceedings before the Court? How did the detention authority organise them? In particular, was a prison officer present during the telephone conversations? Was he/she able to hear the applicant and his lawyer at the time? Did the presence of a prison officer constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s rights protected by Articles 8 or 34 of the Convention? If so, was it justified?

In particular:

(a) Was the interference “prescribed by law”?

(b) If so, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

(c) If so, was it “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve those aims?

2. Does the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convection to complain about inability to communicate privately with his lawyer by telephone? In particular, does the scope of judicial review include an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the impugned measure?

3. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the proceedings he brought against the detention authority? In particular, was he afforded an opportunity to effectively present his case before the Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk and the Khabarovsk Regional Court, having regard to the fact that those courts refused his requests for leave to appear at the hearings? Whether the courts weighed the necessity of his personal presence at the hearings, or considered making procedural arrangements with a view to upholding the fairness of the proceedings (see Yevdokimov and Others v. Russia , nos. 27236/05 and 10 others, §§ 30-48, 16 February 2016)?