Communicated on 23 February 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 66607/16 Andrey Valeryevich KIRIYAK against Russia lodged on 2 November 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Andrey Valeryevich Kiriyak , is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and was detained in Kaliningrad. He is repres ented before the Court by Ms S. N. Gursova , a lawyer practising in Svetlogorsk , Kaliningrad Region.

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

3. In 2016 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention pending a criminal investigation against him.

4. On 23 May 2016 he asked the investigator to permit him telephone contact with his defence counsel Mr G. and his mother Mrs N. The petition indicated the phone number of Mr G., but not that of his mother, and contained a note that the latter should be obtained from Mr G.

5. On 6 June 2016 the investigator allowed phone calls to defence counsel Mr G., but not to the applicant ’ s mother. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:

“ ... [The petition may not be granted in the part concerning phone calls to the applicant ’ s mother Mrs N.] since the investigation authorities do not have her phone number and it was not provided by the accused.”

6. The applicant challenged the decision in court under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. On 28 June 2016 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad refused to consider the complaint under Article 125 because the impugned decision did not pertain to the pre-trial investigation and had not violated the applicant ’ s constitutional rights. On 15 August 2016 the decision was upheld on appeal by the Kaliningrad Regional Court.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about disproportionate restriction on telephone contact with his mother during his detention. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention about lack of an effective remedy for his complaint under Article 8.

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?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

Did the authorities put disproportionate restrictions on the applicant ’ s telephone contact with his family during his detention?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Con vention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?