Communicated on 18 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 76140/13 Mikhail Aleksandrovich KOSENKO against Russia lodged on 1 7 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mikhail Aleksandrovich Kosenko , is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow . He is represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Shukhardin , a lawyer practising in Moscow .

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

The applicant is a disabled person suffering from schizophrenia acquired during the military service. From 2001 he had been under the outpatient supervision of a psychiatric medical institution. In 2008 he was assigned a second-degree disability and since then he has been receiving a disability pension.

On 6 May 2012 the applicant took part in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square . On 8 June 2012 he was arrested on suspicion of having participated in mass disorder s and of having used violence against the police during the demonstration of 6 May 2012. He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in mass disorders) and 318 § 1 ( violence against a public official ).

On 9 June 2012 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention . After subsequent extensions, his detention was authorised until 22 October 2013.

On 18 October 2012 t he applicant ’ s case was referred to the Z a moskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow for a ruling as to his compulsory placement in a psychiatric institution.

On 31 October 2012 the applicant was transferre d to the remand prison IZ - 77/ 2 in Moscow which had a medical ward with a psychiatric department.

On 10 July 2013 during the proceedings in which the Z a moskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention he complained that at the remand prison he was not allowed family visits, in particular by his sister, his legal guardian. He indicated that he had not received family visits for eight months and requested the court to secure his right for family visits, but the court ruled that it was outside its competence. The applicant appealed, complaining, in particular, about the lack of family visits and the court ’ s refusal to address this issue.

On 4 September 2013 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant ’ s appeal and dismissed it without taking cognisance of the complaint concerning the lack of family visits.

On 5 September 2013 the applicant ’ s mother died.

On 6 September 2013 the applicant ’ s sister sent, on the applicant ’ s behalf, a request to the Z a moskvoretskiy District Court and to the remand prison IZ-77/2 to allow the applicant ’ s attendance of his mother ’ s funeral.

On 9 September 2013 the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation made the same request on the applicant ’ s behalf.

The applicant has not received any reply to these requests and could not attend the funeral which took place on 11 September 2013.

On 8 October 2013 the Z a moskvoretskiy District Court examined the criminal charges against the applicant and found that he had committed the offences set out in the indictment. He was absolved from criminal liability on the grounds of mental incapacity and was convicted to an internment in a psychiatric hospital of undetermined duration.

On 11 July 2014 the applicant was released from the psychiatric hospital and continued his treatment on outpatient basis.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was deprived of family visits during his pre-trial detention and that he was not granted leave from prison to attend his mothers ’ funeral .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The Government are invited to indicate the procedure to be followed by detainees for requesting family visits during the pre-trial detention. They are also invited to specify the procedure for visits by legal guardians.

2. The Government are invited to indicate the procedure to be followed by detainees for requesting leave from remand prison for family reasons, such as funerals.

3. Ha ving regard to the applicant ’ s allegations concerning the restrictions on family visits and his inability to attend his mothers ’ funeral during his pre-trial detention, ha s there been a violation of the appli cant ’ s right to respect for his family life , contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?